Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ROCHDALE CANAL BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; an Amendment made to the Bill; Bill to be read the Third time.

PETITION

Cervical Cancer (Tests)

Mr. McBride: I seek leave to present a Petition on behalf of the National Association of Ladies' Circles of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
This Petition stresses the importance of routine tests in relation to cervical cancer being applied to all women at risk, the tests to be carried out under the auspices of the National Health Service. The importance of this is emphasised by the fact that 3,000 women annually die from this disease, and it has been the subject of many Questions in this House. I recently initiated an Adjournment debate in connection with the establishment of such a service.
There are 11,326 signatories to this Petition drawn from all parts of the United Kingdom. The Petition is addressed:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled:
and sheweth:
That, concerning cervical cancer tests, wherefore your Petitioners pray that they do urgently request, the immediate consideration of Her Majesty's Government to the importance and necessity of the availability of routine tests for cervical cancer to every woman, of suitable age, under the National Health Scheme.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Nationalised Industries

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what has been the average price increase since October last in goods sold or services provided by nationalised industries, including the Post Office; how far this conforms with Government policy; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Walters: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs how many nationalised industries have increased charges to consumers since October, 1964.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what was the average percentage increase in prices charged by the nationalised industries in the last 12 months; and what was the average increase in the private sector in the same period.

The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. George Brown): A number of nationalised industries have increased their charges during the past year. I will, with permission, circulate more detailed information in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As I explained in our debate on 11th May, there are established procedures for ensuring that these increases are no greater than is necessary and take place only after every effort has been made to absorb increased costs in greater efficiency.

Mr. King: May I first congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having at his disposal a Prices and Incomes Board which is an authoritative body? As he now has a stick with which to chastise an inefficient monopoly, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will use it without fear and without favour?

Mr. Brown: I would not wholly endorse the description which the hon. Gentleman gave of the Board, but certainly we will use it without fear or favour.

Mr. Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that, as far as the National Coal Board is concerned, coal prices have been stable for three or four years now and that if there has been a price increase to the consumer it has arisen directly out of the privately-owned sector, namely, the distributive sources, as was explained by the Coal Consumers Council recently? When my right hon. Friend circulates his information in the OFFICIAL REPORT, will he make that quite clear?

Mr. Brown: Perhaps my hon. Friend will have a look at the information circulated. If he needs any more, I will do my best to give it. As I have repeatedly said, I would like to think that private enterprise has been as good as public enterprise in this field.

Captain Orr: Would the First Secretary consider referring to the Board the cost of transport services across the Irish Sea?

Mr. Brown: That question does not seem to arise out of this Question, but if the hon. and gallant Member will put it down I shall certainly consider it.

Following is the information:
Since October 1964, there have been significant increases in price by nationalised industries as follows: electricity (nine area boards and the Central Electricity Generating Board); the Scottish Area Gas Board; coke (sold by the N.C.B. and area gas boards); British Railways; British Road Services; the Air Corporations (for some international fares) and the charges in certain British Transport docks. In addition Post Office charges for postal services were increased in May 1965.
It is not possible to give a percentage figure averaging all these increases in a way which would be meaningful. However, on the basis of the Index of Retail Prices, the average percentage increase in prices charged by the nationalised industries as a whole to domestic consumers between 16th June, 1964, and 15th June, 1965, was about 6 per cent. and between 15th October, 1964, and 15th June, 1965, about 3 per cent. For the purpose of calculating these figures, the goods and services provided by nationalised industries are defined as coal, coke, gas, electricity, rail and road passenger transport, postal and telephone service. It is not possible to give comparable figures for increases in the private sector alone.

Motor Vehicle and Cycle Industry

Mr. Ioan L. Evans: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he has completed

discussions with organisations involved in the motor vehicle and cycle industry, with regard to the setting up of an economic development committee for the industry; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. George Brown: No, Sir: discussions are continuing.

Mr. Evans: Would my right hon. Friend consider making an announcement as soon as the discussions are completed? Does he realise that this industry is one of the major export industries of the country? Will he consider referring to the committee not only the question of long-term planning but the need to avoid short-time working in the industry?

Mr. Brown: As my hon. Friend knows, there are a number of complicated factors which make it necessary to take great care over what we do in this matter. We intend to get such a committee set up. It is important to take all considerations in account and I will make a statement as soon as I possibly can.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that the National Advisory Council for the Motor Industry, set up by Sir Stafford Cripps nearly 20 years ago, has worked very well indeed? It had and still has the advantage of having a representative on it of the major groups who feel personally committed by decision. Will he make use of that organisation or model his new committee on that council?

Mr. Brown: We shall certainly take that into account. The council has done a considerable job, but I do not think that either the name of Sir Stafford Cripps or the mention of 20 years means that we should not have another look at it. I think the E.D.C. is a more comprehensive body.

Dividends

Mr. Hamling: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what has been the movement of dividends since October, 1964; and to what extent the movement has accorded with Government policy on incomes.

Mr. George Brown: It is estimated that in the first quarter of 1965 total gross dividend payments on ordinary and preference shares were 28 per cent. higher than a year earlier. I consider that this rate of increase is excessive and am keeping a careful watch on the position.

Mr. Hamling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since January, 1963, average earnings have gone up by only 17 per cent. and since last October by only 2 per cent.? Will he draw these statistics particularly to the attention of the Front Bench opposite?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend may well have achieved his objective.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is the First Secretary aware that many of us think that it would be impossible for him to carry out a successful policy as long as his Government continue to penalise those who are trying to save and encourage those who are not trying to do so?

Mr. William Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will not be disposed to refuse to refer dividends to the Incomes and Prices Board? Does he not recognise—I am sure he does—that if he is to get agreement on an incomes policy it must be fair to all incomes? Will he give an assurance that he will refer some of these incomes to the Board early?

Mr. Brown: Yes, I am quite clear that incomes in the terms of the policy we are trying to operate now means all incomes, and anyone having incomes outside what can be permitted within the rise of productivity is contributing to the inflationary spiral.

Mr. Biffen: The First Secretary says that dividends have increased by 28 per cent., but can he tell the House whether the capital employed in giving rise to those dividends is strictly comparable to the two periods?

Mr. Brown: Yes, I think so.

Incomes and Prices

Mr. Hamling: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will issue a statement of Her Majesty's Government's policy on incomes and prices in simple language for popular distribution.

Mr. George Brown: A popular broadsheet on the need for a Prices and Incomes Policy was issued last month, the demand for which exceeded 200,000. Another on the machinery to make it effective is now ready. I will send copies to the hon. Member and will make copies available in the Library.

Mr. Hamling: While congratulating my right hon. Friend, may I ask him to bear in mind that what is particularly needed for some people, especially some hon. Members, is a distinction between an incomes policy and a wage freeze?

Mr. Brown: In that case my hon. Friend and anyone similarly afflicted had better read the popular broadsheet.

Sir D. Renton: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the part that can be played in preventing wage-cost inflation by encouraging collective agreements? Will he study the Motion on the Order Paper today which sets that out?

Mr. Brown: Nothing we have ever done has ever discouraged collective agreements. I welcome the conversion of the right hon. and learned Member.

Mr. Marten: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government will now take to check the rise in prices.

Mr. Fisher: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will seek to hold fresh discussions with the Trades Union Congress on the prices and incomes policy of Her Majesty's Government, in view of recent statements by trade union officials concerning this policy.

Mr. Ron Lewis: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he is satisfied with the progress made up to date in the implementation of his Incomes and Prices policy; and if he will make a statement.

Brigadier Clarke: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what further steps he proposes to take to prevent breaches of his incomes policy.

Mr. George Brown: No one who is concerned about our national well-being


can feel satisfied with the current inflationary rise in prices and money incomes. Unless all concerned make a much more serious effort to observe in practice the general principles which have been agreed between Government, management and unions, we shall damage our prospects of achieving a more rapid rate of growth of output, exports and real incomes. I am considering in consultation with representatives of management and unions possible ways of developing and strengthening the agreed policy for prices and incomes.

Mr. Marten: In view of the rise in prices, which has been much more considerable recently than in the past few years—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—oh, yes—what action does the First Secretary propose to take if his voluntary principles do not succeed?

Mr. Brown: If the voluntary principle does not succeed, quite a lot of people will be at fault. At the moment, I am discussing with both sides—indeed all sides, management, manufacturers and the unions—what steps we can take to ensure that the voluntary principle does succeed. I am sure the hon. Member is asking himself what happens in a democratic society if the voluntary principle fails.

Mr. Fisher: As the right hon. Gentleman's incomes policy is now virtually in ruins—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—with wage increases of about 9 per cent. instead of 3 per cent., will he use influence with his own union and his Cabinet colleagues to secure their co-operation and tell the House on whose side the Minister of Technology is—on the side of the Cabinet or of the Transport and General Workers Union?

Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir. It would be easier to answer this if I knew who was on which side among hon. Members opposite. Last night the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said that anyone who deliberately got less than the best possible return for his labour, anyone exercising restraint, was guilty of a kind of sabotage. On whose side is he?

Mr. Lewis: Despite the moanings and groanings of hon. Members opposite, may I assure my right hon. Friend that we on

this side of the House wish him every success in his endeavours?

Brigadier Clarke: Does the First Secretary realise that most people think that his incomes policy is a colossal flop?

Mr. Brown: Some hon. Members opposite think it is a flop and some think that it should not have been started. They had better make up their minds, because the country takes a totally different view from both those views.

Sir T. Beamish: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the explanation of the fact that prices have gone up two and a half or three times faster in the last six months than the average of the last five years of Conservative Government?

Mr. Brown: That is not in fact so. One of the things I would have thought everyone who cares about the stability and future of the country would do would be to help us to stop price increases going on.

Mr. Ridley: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (1) by how much prices have risen since October, 1964;

(2) what information he has as to by how much more prices would have risen since October, 1964, if resale price maintenance had not been ended in many industries.

Mr. George Brown: By 4·4 per cent.
It is not possible to give the effect of the abolition of resale price maintenance on this figure, but so far this can only have been slight.

Mr. Ridley: Does the First Secretary remember that the Queen's Speech said, "My Ministers will work for more stable prices"? Does not he think that the 4·4 per cent. increase in this period is really letting the nation down? Would he further agree that by the Resale Prices Act he has had his bacon saved, and will he acknowledge publicly his debt to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath)?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member had better reconsider who it is who puts up prices. The register set up under the Resale Prices Act covers 490 classes of goods which so far are exempted. It does


not seem to me that that can be playing very much of a part at the moment.

Mr. Rankin: Could my right hon. Friend give us some idea of how dividends have increased in the same period?

Mr. Brown: I answered that Question earlier. It was a good deal greater than 4·4 per cent.

Mr. William Clark: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the figure of 4·4 per cent. is way in excess of the increase in the same period last year? Will he further agree that most of this price increase has come about because of the two Budgets introduced by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Brown: And a good deal of it has come about because the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) continually says that anybody who gets prices down is guilty of sabotage.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Has the right hon. Gentleman estimated by how much prices might have risen but for the activities of his Department?

Mr. Brown: No, Sir, but I can also say that we might have had a good deal more success if we had been supported by right hon. Members opposite instead of being consistently opposed.

Mr. Tinn: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that last year unemployment was also in excess of what it is this year?

Mr. Brown: That seems to me to be a different question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—the answer to which is, Yes, Sir.

Press Relations

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what plans he has for strengthening the staff of his Department dealing with Press relations; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. George Brown: I have no such plans.

Mr. Lewis: Why not? Is the Minister aware that it would appear that the speeches he makes in favour of his incomes

policy get a worse Press than the speeches of the Minister of Technology against an incomes policy?

Mr. Brown: In this particular respect, I have no complaint against the Press.

Electricity Boards

Mr. Lubbock: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will refer the price increases being imposed by the South-Eastern Electricity Board to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will refer to the National Board for Prices and Incomes the increased electricity charges imposed by the Southern Electricity Board in the area of Portland and Weymouth.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will now refer the increase in rates charged by the South-Eastern Electricity Board to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Mr. George Brown: No, Sir.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the First Secretary of State aware that the increases imposed by the London Electricity Board on the domestic user which he has already referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes are only 9·1 per cent., whereas those of the South-Eastern Electricity Board are 13·3 per cent.? How can he possibly in logic defend the reference of one of these cases to the National Board without referring the other case?

Mr. Brown: Very easily, because there are hurdles which increases in the nationalised sector have to surmount. One of them is the consultative committee. The consultative committee thought that the price increase proposed by the London Electricity Board was wrong. The consultative committee thought that the increase proposed by the Eastern Electricity Board was right. Therefore, having looked at the merits of both cases, taking into account the difference in the answers of the consultative committees, I thought that the one merited reference and the other did not.

Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman said "No, Sir". May I ask him, "Why not, Sir?", because this percentage increase is quite out of tune both with his policy and with what is necessary?

Mr. Brown: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman clearly was not listening. I gave that answer in reply to the previous question.

Mr. Goodhart: Does the First Secretary of State recall that the National Board for Prices and Incomes encouraged the customers of the road haulage industry not to pay the increased charges? What will happen if the customers of this nationalised board refuse to pay the increased charges?

Mr. Brown: We shall have to await the outcome of the reference, shall we not?

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there must be something rather wrong with his hurdles, since in one case 9 per cent. is all right whereas in the other case 13 per cent. is wrong? Surely it is time the right hon. Gentleman changed the hurdles?

Mr. Brown: That may well be so, but I did not erect the hurdles. The previous Government did.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Does not my right hon. Friend find it stange that hon. Members opposite are so ready to wish him to refer increases in prices to a Board in which they have said they do not believe?

Mr. Lubbock: I believe in this Board. I think that it has an important function to perform. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if there are some other criteria which he looks at in addition to the percentage increases, which I have shown him are larger in the case of the South-Eastern Electricity Board? Will he state what those criteria are so that we can evaluate his decisions?

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman would like to table a wider Question, I will certainly answer it. The matter cannot be dealt with simply by reference to the figure involved. There are many other considerations to be taken into account. I repeat that in the case of a nationalised industry, unlike private enterprise industry, a consumers' body

has to be consulted first. It was not only I who decided that in this case the merits did not warrant reference to the Board. The consumers' body, which had every opportunity to refuse, also thought that there was no reason to object.

Dame Irene Ward: A terrible muddle.

Mr. Brown: It may be a terrible muddle, but I did not create it.

National Economic Plan

Mr. Awdry: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when he proposes to publish the national economic plan; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. George Brown: I have nothing to add to the Answer given on 15th July by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the Question by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis).

Mr. Awdry: Does the First Secretary of State agree that this plan is not so much a plan as an exercise in guesswork? When he does publish his plan, will he also publish the sanctions which he thinks the Government will have to take to implement it?

Mr. Brown: Before the hon. Gentleman makes up his mind about the plan, perhaps he would wait to see it.

Sir C. Osborne: Whilst wishing the Minister well—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—which is more than half his half-witted hon. Friends do, may I ask him this? Is he aware that today's tape contains the most serious bit of information, namely, that for the first time for many years in July there is an increase in unemployment? Does not this foreshadow a very serious crisis? Will his plan meet that?

Mr. Brown: Considering how much pressure I get from hon. Members opposite that unemployment ought to rise, I find that a rather remarkable supplementary question. The hon. Gentleman is falling below his normal standard. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) should have groaned so loudly when the hon. Gentleman rose.

Mr. Ogden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of a report in today's issue


of the Sun which claims that when the national economic plan is published in September of this year, if I may quote—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The article explains that the target which some hon. Members on this side have been expecting for coal production is to be greatly reduced. Would my right hon. Friend take note of this statement and consider whether it would be wise to made a statement concerning this issue, which is causing great concern on this side of the House?

Mr. Speaker: I admire the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity, but it all adds up to a request to the Minister to confirm or deny something in a newspaper, which is out of order.

Meat Prices

Mr. Ron Lewis: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he is aware of the concern of housewives at the continuous rise of meat prices; and if he will refer this problem to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Mr. Wallace: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will arrange for an investigation of meat prices by the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Mr. George Brown: I entirely share my hon. Friend's concern at the level of meat prices. As he may know, in the yast year it is mainly beef prices that have gone up. But I do not think a reference to the National Board for Prices and Incomes would be helpful, because the current level of prices is largely determined by world supply and demand. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food informed the House on 7th July, we hope to announce shortly the Government's proposals for a meat and livestock commission.

Mr. Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the question of excessive meat prices was rampant even under the previous Administration? Will he give an undertaking to protect the housewife today?

Mr. Brown: That is our main concern, and I think that when the Government's proposals for a meat and livestock

commission are before the House my hon. Friend will see what we are doing to try to secure this.

Mr. Wallace: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in a period of shortage considerable speculation has been and is taking place, particularly in this trade, and that most of the speculators, apart from taking a profit margin, render no useful service in distribution to the housewife?

Mr. Brown: I take note of my hon. Friend's view. Probably it would be better if I did not comment further on it.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Has there been an increase in the export of live and dead cattle to the Continent?

Mr. Brown: I cannot answer that without notice.

National Board for Prices and Incomes (Hospitality Fund)

Mr. Weatherill: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what is the position regarding entertainment allowances for full-time members of the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Mr. George Brown: Members of the Board do not have such personal allowances. There will be an annual hospitality fund for the Board, but the level of this has not yet been decided.

Mr. Weatherill: If this is so, why did not his public relations experts refute the specific statement in a paper published in June that these people had allowances?

Mr. Brown: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, we are not so easily taken in by the Daily Telegraph.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: When the hospitality allowances have been decided on, who is this hospitality to be given to?

Mr. Brown: To those to whom the members of the Board feel they need to give hospitality.

Bus Fares

Mr. McBride: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will refer all increases in public service bus fares to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Mr. Godman Irvine: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will now accede to the request received from the Town Clerk of Bexhill to refer to the National Board for Prices and Incomes the fare increases recently granted by the South Eastern Traffic Commissioners to Maidstone and District Motor Services.

Mr. George Brown: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and I are watching the position closely, but we believe that the statutory procedures for regulating provincial bus fares laid down under the Road Traffic Acts are sufficient to ensure that the national interest is taken fully into account. I do not think therefore that reference to the National Board for Prices and Incomes at this stage would be appropriate.

Mr. McBride: Is not my right hon. Friend aware of the strenuous opposition offered to increases as recently as the 11th of this month by 40 local authorities in South Wales, including the county borough of Swansea? Would he not agree that in many cases these increases in fares cushion inefficiency on the part of many private operators? Does he not think it would be wise to reconsider his decision?

Mr. Brown: The only decision I am asked for here is whether I will refer the increases to the National Board. At the moment neither my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport nor I think that is necessary. The Commissioners exist and have their powers, and indeed in the case of the East Midlands quite recently they actually refused applications. So long as they have these powers and use them in this way, it would seem wrong to require a double reference for the same purpose.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Alternatively, would the Minister take into special account the needs of old persons, for whom buses are an essential of life and upon whom the increased fares bear unduly heavily?

Mr. Brown: That seems to be another question, but I agree that there is great point in what my hon. and learned Friend says, but I believe that ways are being found to meet it.

Earnings (Sub-contracted Labour)

Mrs. Shirley Williams: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what steps he intends to take to prevent the earnings of men supplied by labour-only subcontractors from breaching the norm agreed by both trades unions and management in a particular industry.

Mr. George Brown: I realise that there is a special problem here, but in these as in other cases the primary responsibility for observing the norm and the other considerations set out in the White Paper on Prices and Incomes Policy must rest with the parties concerned.

Mrs. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this system, which is expanding fast in the construction industry and some parts of the engineering industry, is condemned by responsible trade union officials and employers alike and that it could have a very dangerous effect on collective agreements?

Mr. Brown: Yes, indeed, and that is why I answered in the way I did. A great many people are concerned about this, but the responsibility rests with them and, in the light of what they are doing to control it, we had better leave it to them.

British Printing Corporation Ltd.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs in view of the claim of the Chairman of the British Printing Corporation to a salary of £270,000 per annum, in addition to expense allowance, if he will require the National Board for Prices and Incomes to investigate the salaries and expenses paid to all large industrial undertakings.

Mr. George Brown: No, Sir.

Mr. Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the fact that workers on small and limited incomes and those who have or are negotiating wage rates through their trade unions, such as the printers, feel a little upset at the fact that their wages and conditions are being referred to the Board whereas those in higher income groups appear not to be so treated? Does not my right hon. Friend


feel that an incomes policy would be better received and the trade unions would respond more favourably if they felt that this was being done?

Mr. Brown: I am sorry, but my hon. Friend is not quite up to date. A Question was answered last week on my behalf in which we made it quite clear that we regard the level of remuneration as being quite unjustified. The reason why I am not referring it to the Board is that things are going on at the moment as far as the company is concerned and I prefer to wait what happens there.

Mr. Dean: As the gentleman referred to has worked in my constituency for 40 years, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that this salary figure is grossly exaggerated? Is he aware that my information is that the salary is £1,250 and that anything over and above that depends upon profit, and that the gentleman concerned has waived a substantial part of the profit due to him and has never drawn anything like £270,000 a year?

Mr. Brown: I had better say that if those are the facts no doubt they will be put before the shareholders and made public in due course when we can all assess them.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the desirability of his Department collecting statistics to indicate the trend of incomes of directors and higher executives of companies? Ought not these in certain circumstances to be referred to the Board in the same way as the ordinary wages of ordinary workpeople?

Mr. Brown: There is no difference between us on what can be referred. One has to decide in each case whether it would achieve the end which one has in mind by that kind of reference. In the case of this individual I did not think so, but that does not rule out all kinds of incomes, wages and salaries.

Mr. Shinwell: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it indicates a large measure of prosperity under a Labour Government when somebody can get £270,000?

Mr. Lubbock: If this man had over £90,000 expenses disallowed in one year,

does not that indicate that tax avoiders are rather less successful than the Chancellor of the Exchequer imagines?

Mr. Brown: We are getting near prejudging here matters which are subject to consideration elsewhere and I would prefer not to be drawn further.

Mr. Wilkins: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he has now considered the documents relating to the affairs of the British Printing Corporation submitted to him by the hon. Member for Bristol, South; and whether he will refer the affairs of this company to the Prices and Incomes Board, to be considered concurrently with the present reference of wages in the printing industry.

Mr. George Brown: I have no doubt that the Board is already aware of the case of the directors of the British Printing Corporation, and I do not consider it necessary to take any action to bring it to its attention or to require a separate investigation.

Mr. Wilkins: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the workers in the printing industry, the people who produce the goods, will be very disappointed with the reply which he has now given to me? Is he aware that they fail to understand why it is that he should refer a wage settlement, negotiated nearly two years ago and only just honoured, to the Board when he allows a salary of this astronomical size to go unchallenged? Is my right hon. Friend aware that neither he nor anyone else can explain this to the workers in the terms which he has now used?

Mr. Brown: May I take another shot at explaining it? The Board is aware of this case, and I have not the slightest doubt that it will bear that in mind when it considers the reference which I have already made to it. It does not seem to me that I need to take special steps to ensure that that is so.

Science Industries (Investment)

Mr. Hastings: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what guidance his


Department has given to other Departments on investment in science-based industry; and on what evidence this guidance was based.

Mr. George Brown: None, Sir; but the national plan to be published soon will contain information about industrial investment and will describe the Government's policy towards it.

Mr. Hastings: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it unwise, if it is possible at all, to produce a national plan for productivity without a view on investment in science-based industry? If the right hon. Gentleman does not give advice to other Departments, does he receive advice from the Ministry of Technology?

Mr. Brown: When the plan is published, the hon. Member will be able to see exactly to what extent this has played a part in formulating the plan for the years ahead. It seems to me that the Opposition are in the same trouble over this as they are over the incomes policy. They have to make up their mind whether or not they want it.

Mr. Hastings: Will the right hon. Gentleman please answer my question? Is he getting any advice, and would he agree that it is impossible to draw up a national plan without formulating a view on investment of this kind?

Mr. Brown: I can only repeat that when the plan is published the hon. Member will be able to see it and see to what extent we have had advice and have given advice and what conclusions we have come to.

Mr. Heath: If the right hon. Gentleman does not know whether or not the national plan will have any relation to science-based industries, can he at least tell us whether, when the plan is published in September, it will be based on the nationalisation of the steel industry, which he has told us is essential for the control of the economy?

Mr. Brown: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman back from the Albany. I have no intention of going further than I have in answer to the Question.

Rates

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of

State for Economic Affairs to what extent retail prices are influenced by local rates levied on manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. George Brown: I cannot give a precise answer, but the effect is likely to be very small.

Mr. Taylor: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that rates are becoming an ever-increasing percentage of total costs and, therefore, of prices? As his Government's slender majority stems largely from a specific pledge to reduce the rate burden, does not the right hon. Gentleman, as the Minister responsible for prices, consider that he ought to exert pressure on his right hon. Friends and try to redeem that pledge?

Mr. Brown: The Government's adequate majority stems from a number of things and will be sustained not least by the obvious incompetence of the Opposition. On the Question actually on the Order Paper, I repeat what I said, that we think that the effect is probably a very small one.

Sir C. Osborne: Three per cent.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that it has been one of the bigger factors in 1965 in the 4½ per cent. increase in prices which we have had since his Government came in? Will the right hon. Gentleman talk to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government to see whether a new formula can be arranged to transfer some of the rate burden to the central Exchequer?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman will have seen the very good speech on this very subject which my right hon. Friend made at Hove the other night. On his other point, there is very little I would take from him, and certainly not that.

Mr. Hamling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the recent report on rates blamed the previous Government for the big increase?

Mr. Brown: Clearly, all reports on all our problems can blame only the previous Government.

Mr. William Clark: Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the question about rates put by my hon. Friend the


Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor)? My hon. Friend reminded the right hon. Gentleman that his Government secured their narrow majority when they came in on a promise, among other things, to reduce rates. Do they intend to reduce rates, or is this to be another of their many broken promises?

Mr. Brown: I cannot repeat every answer three times. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the OFFICIAL REPORT of what I said he will see it all there.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOARD OF TRADE

Advance Factories

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now consider building advance factories in development areas in co-operation with local industry, to ensure maximum use of resources and increased employment in the areas.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Douglas Jay): Advance factories are built by the three Industrial Estates Management Corporations for the Board of Trade. Contracts are normally put out to competitive tender. Experience shows that most have been placed with firms in the vicinity of the site.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is sometimes a danger of siting advance factories in the wrong place to attract new industry or, perhaps, to interest existing industry in the area, and that one of the most successful parts of development policy in the past has been the assistance given to local industries in the area at the time? In the circumstances, ought he not now to contemplate practical assistance of the kind suggested in my Question?

Mr. Jay: I do not think that it is a very general complaint, but we are ready to listen to advice.

Regional Office (Aberdeen)

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now consider establishing a regional office in Aberdeen.

Mr. Jay: I am not convinced that this is necessary. The services of the Board

of Trade's office in Glasgow and its district office in Inverness are available to firms in the Aberdeen area.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in spite of the activities of the present Government, we in the north-east of Scotland look for considerable development and expansion of industry in our area, and more active assistance by the Board of Trade in this regard would be greatly appreciated?

Mr. Jay: I am happy to say that, as a result of the activities of this Government, unemployment is much lower in Aberdeen than it was a year ago.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend recall that during and after his last visit to Aberdeen he promised the setting up of such a regional office, and it has been promised by his predecessors over years past? Will he accept that it is urgently necessary in order to develop trade, industry and commerce in Aberdeen and to reduce unemployment there?

Mr. Jay: No, Sir, I do not remember any such promise, but I know that the situation in Aberdeen is very much more hopeful than it was a year ago.

SECURITY

Sir T. Beamish: asked the Prime Minister what assurances are sought from temporary civil servants recruited by the Government that they will not, when they leave the Service, write books about their experiences.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): None, Sir, because there are already strict rules governing the publication of books or other works by former civil servants based on their official experience.

Sir T. Beamish: Is it, then, the fact that the same assurances have been sought from temporary as from permanent civil servants?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister what instructions are issued within the Civil Service to ensure the security of top secret Cabinet papers.

The Prime Minister: It is not the practice to give details of security procedures.

Mr. Marten: In view of the public anxiety about this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman say what steps are currently being taken to ensure that civil servants do not see top secret defence Cabinet papers when they are, possibly, known to be sympathetic to an organisation which diametrically opposes Her Majesty's Government's Defence policies?

The Prime Minister: I agree that there is anxiety. If I remember aright, the hon. Gentleman was a Minister at the Ministry of Aviation. I ask him to await the report to be published this afternoon on the results of his stewardship.

Mr. Marten: I await that report with great interest, but will the Prime Minister now answer the question which I asked?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that any senior civil servants are receiving top secret papers and they are security risks, I shall be very glad to have any information from him about it.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Will the Prime Minister please refrain from making insinuations against hon. Members until the evidence on which he bases his innuendoes has been before hon. and right hon. Members of the House?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentle-was making very serious suggestions about security, and he expressed the view that there was concern about security. A lot of the concern arises from what has happened in the Ministry of Aviation.

Mr. Grimond: Would it not be much easier to ensure the security of really important papers if we ceased classifying so many papers under various headings? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the other day there arrived on my desk a paper which appeared to be about the breeding habits of lobsters, which was marked "Restricted"?

The Prime Minister: I should need time to examine that particular paper. I have felt for some time now, as we have said on both sides of the House, I think, that security is easier to safeguard if there is some limitation on the amount

of classification of papers, whether in the secret or even in the restricted category.

Dame Irene Ward: Reverting to the Prime Minister's earlier reply, will he say how divisions of opinion within the Cabinet are dealt with as regards security documents?

The Prime Minister: I have not the remotest idea what the hon. Lady is talking about. I was dealing with a Question about the control of security in relation to civil servants.

Dame Irene Ward: I am widening it.

The Prime Minister: I gathered that. I never thought that there was any security danger in the previous Cabinet when they were divided on the M.L.F.

Mr. Shinwell: Was the document on the breeding of lobsters sent to the Leader of the Liberal Party with the idea of enabling his party to develop a policy?

The Prime Minister: I have no idea in what capacity the right hon. Gentleman received it, but I am sure that there was no security risk involved.

FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE AND CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (RESPONSIBILITIES)

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: asked the Prime Minister whether he will re-allocate responsibilities between the First Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the economic problems arising from the trend of Great Britain's trade figures.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Would not the Prime Minister, in his heart, have preferred to answer "Yes" to this Question? Whatever the arguments in the past for this system of dual control, now that we are coming into a critical time in sterling, is it not desirable to prevent even the appearance of a conflict between an expansionist Department of Economic Affairs and a deflationary Treasury? Is it not right to have one strong hand on the tiller?

The Prime Minister: I am not aware of the conflict to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers. If his facts were


right, I am not sure whether he was suggesting that we follow the path of deflation or expansion. While there are tremendously important functions within the control of the Treasury affecting certainly the balance of payments, monetary control, taxation, expenditure, and so on, it is highly important—this is where we have gone wrong in the past—to have an expensionist plan to see that we get the right industrial expansion and the right investment, particularly in our export industries. Nearly all our balance of payments difficulties in the last year or two—I am not complacent about this—have arisen from the fact that we have inadequately expanded capacity in those industries which have the biggest job to do in exports and import saving.

Sir C. Osborne: What on earth is the good of asking business men to increase exports when, as I show in Question No. 42, which the right hon. Gentleman transferred, we are sending goods to the docks which the dockers will not handle for export? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at that side of the problem?

The Prime Minister: As I have explained in the House before—indeed, I have expressed my concern about congestion in the docks and spent a lot of time on it—we have a very important Economic Development Council dealing with the problem of services for exports, including the docks. I am urgently awaiting, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is, the report of the Devlin Commission, which I hope will tell us what needs to be done in the docks.

MINISTER OF STATE FOR ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (DUTIES)

Sir F. Bennett: asked the Prime Minister what are the duties of the Minister of State for Economic Affairs.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave on 24th June to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).

Sir F. Bennett: On recalling that Answer on this occasion, would the Prime Minister like to say which Minister in this Department will be responsible for carrying out the compulsory restriction

in wage rises which his right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State recently threatened?

The Prime Minister: The reply which I gave on the previous occasion was that the duty of the Minister of State is to assist my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State. How work is divided up in the Department will be a matter for my right hon. Friend. If the hon. Gentleman wants to put down Questions about policy perhaps he will put down Questions about policy.

Mr. Doughty: Would the Prime Minister explain to his right hon. Friend that his duties include giving proper Answers to Members in the House and not trying to be too smart with his backchat?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend has been giving proper Answers to Questions, but he has been facing the same difficulty as I have, that an extremely high proportion of Questions from hon. Members opposite neither seek information nor raise questions of policy. They are just simply useless muck-raking questions.

VIETNAM

Mr. Blaker: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the progress of the Commonwealth initiative to achieve a settlement of the problem of Vietnam.

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Prime Minister what further plans he has for seeking to make contact with the leaders of North Vietnam.

The Prime Minister: I have as yet nothing to add to the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and myself in the foreign affairs debate on 19th and 20th July.

Mr. Blaker: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind the point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) in the Spectator that it is not surprising that Hanoi and Peking refused to receive a mission led by himself since he has given full support to American policy? Next time the Commonwealth Mission is considering taking an initiative, will he bear in mind that it might make


more progress if he were prepared to take less of the limelight.

The Prime Minister: This is an extraordinary suggestion by the hon. Gentleman. I thought that he supported the line which we took in supporting the United States in Vietnam. If he is suggesting that we should change that, he had better communicate that view to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. But if he is suggesting that I should not have been chosen by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference to be chairman—that all of us were wrong about this—then, of course, he disregards the fact that this Mission had to be balanced with all points of view. Surely he would agree that it is important in getting acceptance in the United States to have one member of the Mission which has supported the United States policy.

Brigadier Clarke: Would the Prime Minister consider sending the Paymaster-General to Vietnam? Many of us would like to see him go.

The Prime Minister: If I thought that it was going to help—[Laughter.]—to get men round a table and end this very "laughable" war, I would even send the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I do not think that it would.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: As the Prime Minister has repeatedly said that he does not mind rebuffs, which is perhaps just as well, would he please keep in mind the effect on the Commonwealth as a whole—not just upon his own Government—of too many unsuccessful initiatives?

The Prime Minister: What I notice about the hon. Gentleman, and indeed the Leader of the Opposition in saying that this was an ill-considered initiative, is that it is an extremely surprising criticism of senior Commonwealth Prime Ministers such as Sir Robert Menzies and others who strongly supported this Mission.

Mr. A. Henderson: Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister realise that the people of the country are behind all his efforts to bring to an end this savage conflict in Vietnam? Will he continue his efforts?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I think that basically right hon. Gentlemen opposite also support these initiatives. I think that that is their real position, as has been said, in their hearts. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, when he feels better after tonight's meeting, will even support them himself.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Might I make the observation that I sometimes wish that the right hon. Gentleman would behave like a Prime Minister? On the particular point, while I supported the mission as having an outside chance, the only word with which I can describe the other mission is "idiotic".

The Prime Minister: I have tried to take the advice of the right hon. Gentleman. The first advice, of course, marks a welcome change after the previous 12 months. I would hope that he would agree that one of the duties of a Prime Minister is to try to seek peace in this very difficult situation in Vietnam. I might say that it is one of the duties of a Leader of the Opposition to help in that task or to propose alternative means of securing peace, which the right hon. Gentleman has not done. Since he this week condemned the Commonwealth Peace Mission—

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: indicated dissent.

The Prime Minister: Oh, yes. He condemned both of them. I am not interested in his choice of adjectives. I want to know whether he still feels that all the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, for whom I thought he had some respect, were wrong to take an initiative which is inconvenient to the Opposition.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I must explain to the right hon. Gentleman once again—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) will contain himself for a moment, he will hear the answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Out of the gentleness of my heart, I permitted the Prime Minister to commit an outrage to the extent of asking a question at a time when questions should be addressed to him. The hon. Gentleman would be


well advised to give the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity to answer it.

Mr. William Hamilton: Why should the Leader of the Opposition or any other right hon. Gentleman be given preferential treatment at Question Time? Is he permitted only to ask a question, or is he to be permitted to make a statement, contrary to the treatment meted out to back bench members?

Mr. Speaker: It is a matter within my discretion. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can answer a question by asking another. Most people at that level are capable of doing it.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Is not the Prime Minister aware that I have always made it clear that I was in favour of the idea of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Mission but that from the moment it was clear that the right hon. Gentleman had failed to prepare it it was doomed to failure.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. That is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman said in his speech on Tuesday. I agree that that is exactly what he said. The point which I was putting to him was that since such leading Commonwealth Prime Ministers as Sir Robert Menzies had supported it from the outset, knowing all about the preparations, knowing that we could not endanger the Mission by allowing the Chinese to get at it first, the right hon. Gentleman is therefore condemning some senior Commonwealth Prime Ministers who have far more experience and knowledge of world affairs than he has himself.

Mr. Shinwell: May I reply to the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Speaker: I dare say that one day the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) will catch my eye—sometimes he does—but he does not catch it at this moment.

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL PAINTING)

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Sir J. LANGFORD-HOLT: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the acquisition of a painting

by Sir Winston Churchill to be hung in the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. ROBERT COOKE: To ask the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement concerning the acquisition of a painting by Sir Winston Churchill for hanging in the House of Commons part of the Palace of Westminster.

The Prime Minister: With permission, I will now answer Questions Nos. 9 and 10.
Lady Spencer-Churchill has kindly offered to make available one of Sir Winston's paintings for display in the House of Commons. The painting will be hung in a prominent position in the Harcourt Room, along with suitable pictures being lent by the Tate Gallery. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in thanking Lady Spencer-Churchill for her very generous offer.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Will the right hon. Gentleman be assured that the House does thank Lady Spencer-Churchill for this gesture and also is glad to note that the picture is to be hung in a public, albeit a semi-public, room? Thirdly, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House which picture Lady Spencer-Churchill has designated for this purpose?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I am sorry that I have not got that detail with me. There were long discussions with her about this. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is valuable that it should be in a place where not only hon. Members but their wives and guests may see it.

Sir G. Nicholson: I am not quite clear to what extent the ten-year rule has been abrogated in respect of Sir Winston Churchill. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that there is a very good portrait of him in Mr. Speaker's House. Would he consider transferring it into the House?

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member wants to ask me a Question it will have to be a Private Notice Question. But this is not the same point. The Prime Minister was speaking not of a picture of Sir Winston Churchill but of a picture created by Sir Winston Churchill.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Bowden): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 26TH JULY—Supply [24th Allotted Day]: Committee.
Debate on Industry and Employment in Scotland.
Remaining stages of the Public Works Loans Bill, and of the Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY, 27TH JULY—Lords Amendments to the Trade Disputes Bill.
Remaining stages of the Commons Registration Bill [Lords], and of the Patents (Employees' Inventions) Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY, 28TH JULY—Supply [25th Allotted Day]: Committee, when, if the House agrees, the Questions will be put forthwith.
Debate on an Opposition Motion on the Cost of Living.
Remaining stages of the International Monetary Fund Bill.
Motion on the Weights and Measures (Exemption) Order.
Second Reading of the following Consolidation Measures:
National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill [Lords].
Family Allowances Bill [Lords].
National Health Service Contributions Bill [Lords].
National Insurance Bill [Lords].
Statute Law Revision (Consequential Repeals) Bill [Lords].
Compulsory Purchase Bill [Lords].
Nuclear Installations Bill [Lords].
Ministerial Salaries Consolidation Bill [Lords].
New Towns Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY, 29TH JULY—Supply [26th Allotted Day]: Report, when if the House agrees, the Questions will be put forthwith.
Debate on an Opposition Motion on the Labour Party's Election Pledges.
Remaining stages of the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY, 30TH JULY—Motions on the White Fish and Herring Subsidy Schemes, on the White Fish and Herring Industries Orders, on the Small Farm (Business Management) Schemes, on the Price Stability of Imported Products Order, on the Visiting Forces and International Headquarters and Defence Organisations Orders, and on the Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation.
MONDAY, 2ND AUGUST—The proposed business will be: Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That sounds like a good mixed bag for next week. Will the Leader of the House say when the statement will be made on immigration? I saw suggestions about it on the tape, and I should like to know whether he can say when this will be made.

Mr. Bowden: Yes, Sir. I had hoped to make this statement towards the end of next week. That may not now be possible. But it will be made early in the following week, to be followed on the same day, or as soon as possible afterwards, by a White Paper.

Mr. Grimond: Does the Leader of the House remember that last week I asked him whether a statement could be made about the negotiations on Rhodesia before the House rose? I should be grateful for some information, especially in view of the Minister of State's visit to that Commonwealth.
Secondly, may I ask him for a little more information about the Consolidated Fund Bill? This is a Bill on which any Member may raise a variety of topics. Is it intended to divide up the time? Have conversations taken place about it? For the convenience of the House, might it not be an advantage if all General Election promises were circulated before the debate next Thursday?

Mr. Bowden: My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Commonwealth Relations, is at the moment in Rhodesia, and if the statement can be made next week or the week after that, no doubt


this will be done. I will consult the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations.
It is normal, on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, to take it formally, and the Opposition then choose a subject for debate. But on subsequent stages, including Report and Third Reading, it has become the practice over a number of years for this to be wide open for general discussion raised by hon. Members from both sides of the House.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the congested state of the business, may I remind my right hon. Friend of my suggestion last Thursday about having a morning meeting? Could we not at any rate dispose of the Lords at a morning meeting?

Mr. Bowden: Despite the length of the list of Measures read out for Wednesday of next week which have come to us from another place, they are all consolidation Measures. The House is aware from our procedure that such Measures go through very quickly and ought not to take up any time.
Despite what was said during the exchanges on business on Thursday of last week about the possibility of sitting into the second week of August, I am now very hopeful that we can conclude our business at the end of the first week of August without going on unduly late, or without sitting in the morning.

Sir C. Osborne: On the question of the welcome and much-awaited Government White Paper on immigration, may I ask whether the Leader of the House will be able to find time before the Recess to discuss it?

Mr. Bowden: No, Sir. I cannot promise any time before the Recess. But if there is a desire to do so, we can, of course, still debate it within the present Session.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is there any chance of having a debate on the now three Reports of the Select Committee on Procedure which are available? Would it not be a very good subject to take in a morning?

Mr. Bowden: I understand that the third Report has only just reached us, and I think that the House would like

a little time in which to consider it. I would certainly arrange for a full debate on the three Reports during this Session.

Sir C. Taylor: When may we expect the promised White Paper on loans to developing countries, which we were promised recently?

Mr. Bowden: I cannot give the actual date, but I know that the Minister of Overseas Development has this very much in mind and I hope that it may be before the House rises for the Recess.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Could the Leader of the House tell us whether the Rent Bill is to become law before the recess, as otherwise rent reductions and protection from eviction will be delayed for at least four months?

Mr. Bowden: Protection from eviction is covered by the Protection from Eviction Act. I am not quite sure of the progress of the Rent Bill in another place. We shall have to wait to see what happens there, but certainly we shall get it on the Statute Book during this Session.

Mr. Soames: Will a statement be made this week on the future of the Territorial Army, and, if so, on what day?

Mr. Bowden: I have no information on that at the moment.

Sir G. de Freitas: Does the Leader of the House remember that a few weeks ago he held out a hope that the Opposition might choose to debate the Knapp report on the advantages which the farmers derive from agricultural production provided that it was divorced from the National Farmers' Union? Have the Opposition asked for such a debate?

Mr. Bowden: As far as I remember I said that I could not find Government time, but the Opposition might wish to debate it. There is still one Supply day left for the week after next. The Opposition could do it then if they wished.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Are the Government intending to find time to enable the Minister of Technology to make a statement on the Report from the Estimates Committee which has reported recently on how that Ministry is being built up? In view of the very severe strictures of the Estimates Committee


on this matter, does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that we should have a statement from the Minister of Technology before we rise for the Recess? If not, can the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the Minister of Technology will be available to answer questions on this matter in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill?

Mr. Bowden: Debates on Reports from the Estimates Committee and the Public Accounts Committee take place three days each Session. Those three days have been used up in the present Session, and I cannot promise what will happen in the next Session. I will certainly communicate my hon. Friend's second point to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it would be very improper of the Minister of Technology to make comments on that Report before the departmental reply has been made to the Estimates Committee? Will he take note that his reply on the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) is a very unsatisfactory reply, when we have been promised a debate on the Reports from the Select Committee on Procedure and that one of these, at least, on the problem of Question Hour was regarded as extremely urgent, and ought to be tackled long before the beginning of the next Session?
May I ask my right hon. Friend when he will be in a position to make a statement on the problem of the leadership of the Opposition? It is causing a great deal of concern.

Mr. Bowden: On the question of Reports from the Estimates Committee, the procedure is that we await the Report and replies from the Department. No doubt we shall do that. On the second question, the debate on the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure, I am sure that the House would agree that if it is to take action, other than debate—perhaps both, and I hope that we shall—there now seems to be some case for looking at the Third Report, which reached us this morning.
I cannot comment on my hon. Friend's last point. It is not for me to do so,

but I understand that a selection conference is going on.

Mr. Farr: In view of the recent critical development in Agriculture and also the urgent need to review harvest prospects, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether we can have a debate on this subject before the House rises?

Mr. Bowden: I cannot find Government time, but it could be done, of course, in private Members' time on the Consolidated Fund Bill, or a Motion for the Adjournment.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the unprecedented achievement of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) in making both the House of Commons and the House of Lords work overtime in the morning, does my right hon. Friend not think we should have a statue of him in the Lobby?

Mr. Speaker: That hardly arises on next week's business.

Mr. Braine: In view of the widespread and continuing anxiety on the subject of world liquidity and the prospects for international trade, and of the possibilities of further strains being experienced in the autumn, would the Leader of the House find time to discuss these important subjects before we rise for the Recess?

Mr. Bowden: No, I cannot promise Government time, but there has been a rumour of an economics debate the week after next.

Mrs. Renée Short: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early day Motion No. 303, which now has over 100 names added to it? He will be aware that few Motions in this House get so much support from hon. Members of all parties in the House. Will my right hon. Friend take urgent steps to discuss the request in that Motion at the earliest possible time, with a view to acceding to the request that early next Session the Government will find time for legislation for reform of the abortion law? The support in the House is a reflection of the mounting pressure outside, particularly among women's organisations.

[That this House regrets the continued refusal of Her Majesty's Government to


promise to find time for legislation to modernise and liberalise the law on abortion; believes that such legislation has the overwhelming support of the people and should not be thwarted by the pressures of vocal minorities; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to provide time, early in the next session of Parliament, for this humanitarian measure.]

Mr. Bowden: I have noted the great interest in this Motion but I cannot promise Government time this Session. As far as next Session is concerned, of course at this stage, and till we have heard the Queen's Speech, it is difficult to decide what is likely to happen in that one.

Captain Orr: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether his hopes about the second week in August mean that a debate on Northern Ireland will take place during the first week in August?

Mr. Bowden: I think that we can expect it this present Session.

Mr. Orme: May I return to the question of the Rent Bill? May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware of the great anxiety on this side of the House that that Bill becomes law before we rise, even if it means taking an extra day or two, when it comes back from the House of Lords? Cannot we get this very important Bill on the Statute Book as soon as possible—before the House rises for the Recess?

Mr. Bowden: I really think that we shall have to wait for progress on the Bill in another place before we can decide what we shall do.

Mr. Lubbock: Will the right hon. Gentleman recall that Thursday after Thursday hon. Members on both sides of the House have asked for a debate on public service and Armed Forces' pensions? Can we not have a day to debate that before the Recess?

Mr. Bowden: No, I cannot promise a day for a debate, but, again, it would be in order on Report or Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, or on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Marten: Or the debate on election pledges.

Sir F. Bennett: I understand that there is to be a statement on immigration next week or the week after next. Is it really the view of the Leader of the House that we should not have an opportunity to debate this question before the House rises?

Mr. Bowden: It is only recently since we had our last debate on immigration, when we all felt that this was a nonparty matter. I think that perhaps we had better await the statement and the White Paper, which may come on Monday or Tuesday of the week after next, before any request is made for a debate. If it is made, and it is felt worth while considering it and having a debate, I will try to meet the point.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I think that we must get on.

TRIBUNALS OF INQUIRY (EVIDENCE) ACT, 1921 (ROYAL COMMISSION)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
In recent years anxiety about the working of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, has been expressed on every occasion on which the report of a tribunal set up under the Act has been debated in this House.
Her Majesty's Government have given careful consideration to this matter, and I am now able to announce that the Queen has been pleased to approve the recommendation that a Royal Commission should be appointed, with the following terms of reference:
To review the working of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, and to consider whether it should be retained or replaced by some other procedure, and, if retained, whether any changes are necessary or desirable; and to make recommendations.
The names of the chairman and members of the Royal Commission will be announced later.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: May I say that I think we have not yet achieved the ideal way of dealing with these matters and that a Royal Commission would be a very good way of trying to find the right way?

The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There has been anxiety for a number of reasons about the tribunals. While we have seen alternative procedures develop—for example, the Security Commission, and the one-man Denning inquiry—I do not think that we are quite satisfied that we have yet found the right answer. I think that it will be helpful if the Royal Commission is able to study, in the case of some of the alternatives which have been developed, whether there are defects in the procedures which could be improved, so that recourse to the tribunals may be as rare as possible.

Mr. Grimond: I take it that the Royal Commission will report fairly quickly, otherwise it would seem to suspend the working of the procedure while it is considering it. Secondly, this is a matter which affects Parliament, and peculiarly this House, and it will be rather a pity if we have no opportunity to debate it, so that the views of the House may be before the Commission. Can the Government find a way to inform the Commission of the views of the House?

The Prime Minister: Any hon. Member will be free, of course, to give evidence singly or in any grouping or party sense. It may be that hon. Members will be invited to serve on the Commission. I would certainly feel that when the Report is available from the Commission we shall want to study it. There has been great difficulty about whether to suggest a Select Committee. After all, there is Parliamentary responsibility here. But so much is involved in the procedure of the Commission and there is so much of natural justice in its functioning that we thought it right to have a Royal Commission.

Mr. Bellenger: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing the matter at any rate to some sort of climax? May I reinforce the remarks of the Leader of the Liberal Party about the Royal Commission taking a considerable time and the urgency of the matter, which is now about 40 years old? This is something which the House ought to take into consideration. My right hon. Friend has decided on a Royal Commission in preference to a Select Committee. I suppose that it is too late to change that decision.

However, will he say that the matter will be dealt with with urgency?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I hope that it will be able to be dealt with as quickly as possible and that the Report will not take too long. But a lot of anxieties have been expressed. The Leader of the Opposition, from this Box, expressed some anxieties about the matter. I think that these are fairly general in the House, although we have not yet found a satisfactory alternative.

SECURITY COMMISSION (REPORT ON BOSSARD AND ALLEN CASES)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Report of the Security Commission about the Bossard and Allen cases. Copies of the Report will be available in the Vote Office this afternoon.
I should like, first, to say that the Government are grateful to Lord Justice Winn and his two colleagues for the time and care which they have devoted to carrying out a most thorough inquiry. The House will also wish to endorse the tributes paid to the Security Service on the high degree of professional skill shown in the process by which the offenders were detected.
Certain specific references in the original Report have been omitted or amended in the published text in the interest of security. These amendments have been made in consultation with Lord Justice Winn, and also with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who, in accordance with precedent, has been shown both the full and the published version of the Report. The amendments made are few in number and do not affect the substance of the Report or its conclusions.
It is the responsibility of the Security Commission, when so requested by the Prime Minister, to investigate the circumstances in which a breach of security is known to have occurred in the public service and to advise whether any change in security arrangements is necessary or desirable; and in this report the Commission has suggested a number of possible changes. Some of its proposals


have already been accepted and acted on. The others are being considered. As the Commission itself recognises, some of them involve difficult considerations of principle.
As hon. Members have not yet had an opportunity of reading the Report, I do not propose to comment on it in detail, but I should tell the House that the Commission has referred to the actions of individual civil servants and members of the Armed Forces, and its comments raise the question whether these individuals may have committed some offence against discipline.
I have, therefore, decided that the actions of the serving officers concerned, who are subject to the Army Act, should be referred to the Army Board for investigation and decision as to whether the facts show a prima facie case for disciplinary action under that Act. In the case of the civil servants concerned, I have decided to appoint a board of inquiry to examine the facts and to assess the nature and gravity of any neglect of duty which may have occurred in order to assist in deciding whether disciplinary action is required. The individual civil servants who will appear before the board may be appropriately represented if they so wish. The members of this board will not be serving civil servants.
In this connection, I would remind the House that in my statement on 10th May I explained that the original concept of the Commission, which was announced by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on 23rd January, 1964, after consultation with me, was defective because the Commission could not begin its operations in a case which involved court action resulting from a breach of security until the case had been concluded. In the present cases we overcame this difficulty by asking a small committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Laurence Helsby, to carry out a preliminary, confidential inquiry. The Security Commission, in its report, paid tribute to the usefulness to them of the work of this inquiry and acknowledged that valuable steps were thus able to be at once taken whilst the prosecutions were pending. For the future, the procedure has been altered so that a reference can be made to the Security Commission as soon as the Government are satisfied or have good reason to think that a breach

of security has occurred in the public service.
The Report of the Commission on this occasion has, however, now pointed to the further problem which arises where individual civil servants or serving officers may be held by the Commission to have been at fault. The remedy we have adopted this time is, as I have said, to institute further investigations specifically directed to the acts of the individuals concerned and during which they may be advised and represented. It may be that some other procedure would serve better in future and this is a matter which must be considered in due course.
One last point—and I apologise for the length of this statement, Mr. Speaker. The investigation on this occasion—the first on which the Security Commission has operated—has put a heavy burden on the three members of the Commission. I hope that we shall not often need to ask the Commission to act, and there is at this time no case pending which would suggest that it will have to be activated again in the near future. Nevertheless, Lord Justice Winn and his colleagues have suggested that it would be prudent to enlarge the membership of the Commission, and with the agreement of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition I propose to accept this suggestion. On any future occasion when a reference is made to the Commission, it will still be the practice for three members to sit, but they will be drawn from a larger total. I shall announce the additional names as soon as I can.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I certainly agree with the excisions which have been made from the Report in the interests of security. The Report is, of course, concerned with events which took place some time ago and with the actions which civil servants and others took in a very different situation from that in which we are living now. It is very important, I think, that there should be no injustice done in these cases to these people, and, therefore, I think that the procedures which the Prime Minister is adopting to try to help in these particular cases are wise, and I certainly endorse them.

The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. I


think that it is a matter that worries all of us; and I think that I can speak for the right hon. Gentleman here. When one has an inquiry of this kind and individuals are named and the names are published in the report, it raises some very difficult questions which might affect the efficiency of the service and the willingness of people to embark on security work if they are to be pilloried in this way. This is, I think, an appropriate question to consider through the Commission and not otherwise.

Mr. Grimond: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is desirable, as far as possible, to avoid individuals having the threat of various types of proceeding hanging over their heads? As I understand his statement, there is no question of any criminal proceedings against the individuals to whom he has referred. He was careful to say that there was only some question of an offence against discipline. Can he confirm that there is no question of criminal proceedings?

The Prime Minister: Certainly, Sir; there is no question of that at all. Mr. Macmillan always used to say from this Box that in a free and democratic country one has always to find where the balance lies between security and the liberty of the individual, including individual civil servants, and this point is raised in some of the recommendations on practice which are made by this Security Commission. One has to know where to draw the line. One takes a risk whichever side one draws it.
On the question of the civil servants and serving officers concerned, again, there is the problem that no one wants to be accused of sheltering anyone who may have slipped up in doing his job where that has led to a possible breach of security or enabled a breach of security to go undetected. On the other hand, it may be thought by the House to be a little heavy that their names should permanently carry some kind of slur. That is why we have set up an inquiry, so that they can justify themselves and truth can be found. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that nothing is in question here except whether they pursued their duties with sufficient zeal.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: As previous Conservative Governments spent over £50 million on so-called security and the cost of the Security Service has gone up from £4 million to £9 million, is it not time for an inquiry to be set up to see whether the nation gets value for its money?

The Prime Minister: I hope that when my hon. Friend reads the Report he will note the very strong tribute paid by the Security Commission to the work of the Security Service. That view is shared by anyone who has studied the detailed operations in these two cases and in the others which have been the subject of inquiry.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: It is difficult to follow the Prime Minister's statement without having the Commission's Report before us, but I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman one point concerning the question of distinction between serving officers and civil servants in one of the Ministries. I think that the House wants to feel assured that equal justice will be done to both types of servants of the Crown. It could be a problem. The right hon. Gentleman has said that it will be looked at, but it is important for justice inside the Service Departments that both civil servants and serving officers should feel that they are having equal fairness of treatment.

The Prime Minister: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is one of the problems. Two Departments are concerned, because there were two separate cases. But within one Department, the former War Office, there is the problem that one or two serving officers have been mentioned as well as one or two civil servants. We considered whether the matter should go before a board of inquiry, since names have been mentioned, but because there is a prima facie suggestion that the serving officers may have neglected their duties to such an extent that the Army Act may be involved they must have the right to have such procedure as the Army Board may think appropriate in the circumstances. That means handling the serving officers and the civilians differently, but it will be the desire of everyone that they should receive equal treatment, as the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Commander Courtney: The Prime Minister gives at least some of us the


impression that he is engaged in locking a lot of stable doors after a large number of horses have bolted. Will he say whether the Government will now stop acting like a lot of hypnotised rabbits where the question of Soviet espionage is concerned? For example, why allow the production of this excellent book, "Their Trade is Treachery", when he does not dare to publish it?

The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is going very wide of the subject of my statement, which relates to the Report of the Security Commission on these two cases. He has shown on a number of occasions that he still has not got clear what the duties of the Commission are—that is obvious from the letter he wrote—and what the general responsibility of the Government is.
I admire the hon. and gallant Gentleman's choice of language about hypnotised rabbits. I suppose he extends that to everyone responsible for security over the past years.

Commander Courtney: indicated assent.

The Prime Minister: Fair enough. We all accept his right to say so. But breach

of security is an extremely difficult thing to find, as I have said, except in conditions where every member of the staff of a Department is searched every time he enters and leaves and where people in the public service are submitted to controls and procedures so severe that we would not, I think, get very much recruitment. But we have taken steps. Indeed, we took a lot of them before the Commission began its work.

Mr. Onslow: Are we to assume that the Prime Minister has no intention of referring to the Security Commission the security leakage concerning the visit of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance to Hanoi, which the Prime Minister himself—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That has no possible kind of relevance to the Prime Minister's statement.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[23RD ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir SAMUEL STOREY in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1965–66

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding £30, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966, for the following services connected with London's Commuter Transport Services, namely:—


Civil Estimates, 1965–66
£


Class IV, Vote 11, Ministry of Transport
10


Class IV, Vote 15, Transport Services
10


Class IV, Vote 16, Transport (Railways and Waterways Boards)
10


Total
£30

LONDON COMMUTER TRANSPORT SERVICES

4.5 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The object of this brief debate is to raise and to discuss the situation obtaining on the railway routes in the south-east of England which are heavily used by commuter traffic. It is a situation which a number of hon. Members opposite who called upon the Minister of Transport last week are said to have described as the "inconvenience that their constituents are suffering as a result of the interrupted services". I must say that that is a masterpiece of under-statement.
The conditions could justifiably be described as an utter disruption of the pattern of life and of the business of hundreds of thousands of citizens who depend upon these services for their livelihood and for getting to work. I am sure that, before the debate has come to an end, the validity of that description will have been proved beyond question by the evidence which will be brought by hon. Members on both sides from their own experience and that of their constituents.
Last week end, the Prime Minister made a very remarkable statement in

Durham. He said that "Britain could no longer afford workers who inflicted harm to production and the public with 'go-slows' or sporadic strikes in defiance of their own unions". He continued:
… and if the magic phrase 'working to rule' means holding up production or crippling essential services then we had better change the rule.
That is a statement which has certainly evoked an echo far and wide in the public; what we want to know in this debate is whether those were mere words, or whether to them there corresponds any intention, any policy, any course of action; for the circumstances to which they relate—the infliction of harm on production and the public by go-slows and sporadic strikes and the crippling of essential services by working to rule—are certainly fulfilled today and have been fulfilled for some time past. We are, therefore, entitled to ask what relationship there is between the Prime Minister's statement and the circumstances in which hundreds of thousands of people find themselves today.
It reminded one of another statement, which was made by the Minister of Labour a few weeks earlier when he found himself in the centre of a rather similar situation which had arisen at London Airport. When referring to those who had caused it, he said:
These men have flatly contradicted their own union and they pour their spleen upon ordinary folk. These men have the power to disrupt the lives of good people. Those good people may, ere long, say that they have had enough and are not going to be pushed around any longer and they will have all my support.
Again, what we want to know is, what is the meaning and practical application of a forthright statement of that kind which, again, is so very widely echoed amongst people of all parties and of none? Does it mean anything? Because the good people who rely on the commuter services to London have had, and are having, their lives disrupted and if there is a case for action, if these assertions by responsible Ministers mean anything, then this is an absolutely classic case and classic opportunity for putting them into practice.
What they cannot say is that they were taken by surprise—that they had their ideas and their plans but that this situation came upon them suddenly and unawares, and that it would not have been


practicable for them to take the steps which they might otherwise have wished to take to make good their intentions. That is not the case here. The claim which lies behind the current difficulties is two years old. It was late last October when a go-slow on some of these lines was threatened, and by the early days of November—I think that it was by the 11th—chaotic conditions had developed on a number of lines. These continued until 19th November, when the action was called off, as the words ran at the time, "pending the outcome of national talks on a productivity scheme".
That was last November. Since then eight months have gone by. Sporadic trouble started again in the middle of June, but it was only on 8th July—a fortnight ago—that the services again started to be seriously interfered with. As the Committee knows, that interference, with all the chaos and disruption involved, has continued from that time till today, and unless there is some very recent news there is at any rate no immediate prospect of its termination.
All this time—ever since last October and November—all those concerned, not only the Railways Board and the unions but also the Government, knew quite well what the situation was. They knew what the risks were. They knew the prospect of the disruption of the lives of ordinary people. It is small wonder that a week or so ago the Labour Correspondent of The Times wrote:
It cannot really come as a surprise either to the Railways Board or the unions that the men have become impatient again, after negotiations have drifted on for nearly eight months since the last work to rule.
The difficulties moved to a crescendo at the end of last week, with the 24-hour strike in North Kent added and the spread of trouble to four other counties. Today, we learn that although endeavours are being made to bring matters on to a different footing there is no immediate prospect—unless the Minister has other news—of the disruption being terminated.
In these circumstances the Committee and the country are entitled to know what the Government intend to do—now, in this case, and also generally for the future. They have uttered bold words. They have attached their authority to assertions of intention which are very sweeping and which, if they could be

carried out, would certainly meet the wishes of the great mass of our people. They are popular sentiments. What we want to know from the Government is what these sentiments mean in practice, and how they would be applied to this situation or to any other like it which might arise.
At the very best there has been an entire lack of foresight and an entire absence of correspondence between mere words on the one hand, and deeds and policies on the other. So, by virtue of their own declarations, the present situation is one out of responsibility for which the Government Front Bench cannot contract; indeed, they have deliberately accepted responsibility for the continuance of the present hardships and difficulties.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. R. J. Gunter): The right hon. Member has made a rather interesting submission. He has already stated that the background of the dispute is at least three years old, but that nothing was done until last November. At least I intervened within four weeks of coming into office.

Mr. Powell: Yes, but it was last November that the go-slow arose for the first time, and ever since then it has been self-evident to those in touch with the position that there was a likelihood and danger of a recurrence. The right hon. Gentleman has been getting into this position with his eyes open during the whole time that he has been in office.
There is another reason why the Government cannot contract out of responsibility. This debate is taking place upon the Transport Vote. I noticed that the secretary of the union mainly involved—A.S.L.E.F.—said, a few days ago:
What concerns me is this inconvenience to the public—The public are our customers.
though he went on to add what I thought was psychologically a rather revealing sentence:
Many of them are ordinary trade unionists like ourselves.
The same point was put even more sharply by a Mr. Tinsley, from whom we used to hear regularly during the previous episode last November, and whose appearance from the scene has been missed on this occasion. On 15th November last he said:
They"—


that is, the passengers—
are our bread and butter, and, therefore, we must pay attention to the public.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to Mr. Tinsley, who is a constituent of mine. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that Mr. Tinsley was addressing a meeting of the Orpington and District Passengers' Association last night.

Mr. Powell: I am sorry that so far he has not had the success in being reported that he attained on the earlier occasion. However, we have his word, which I want to draw to the attention of the Committee, that the pasengers are the railway workers' bread and butter, and that they must pay attention to the public.
Alas, this is not so, for the British Railways Board is not operating a commercial undertaking which relies for its success and continuance upon the good will of its customers and for what they are willing to pay for the services, which, year by year, makes a commercial success of its operations by serving its customers.
There was a very remarkable letter in The Times yesterday from a Mr. Swift, a driver living in Peterborough. The whole of that letter is well deserving of study, but the sentence which struck me most was that in which he said:
Any other industry that was running its concern as British Rail do today would be bankrupt within a fortnight.
We all know that in the last 12 months the deficit of British Rail on working, alone, was £67½ million, although that was a lower figure than had been experienced for some years past. Before very long it will be necessary for the Committee to inquire what further progess is being made, or is expected, in the further reduction of this enormous working deficit, but what this fact means is that most of the bread and all the butter for British Rail comes from the taxpayer. It comes from the subventions which are provided, on the authority of the House, by the Minister of Transport.
It comes from the same people as taxpayers, who, as commuters are both paying higher fares than they have ever been expected to pay before and also subject to the disruption of their lives by the inadequacy and the interruption of the service. So long as that is the

case, so long as the taxpayer at large through the Minister and the Ministry of Transport, is maintaining the railways by this colossal subsidy, so long will there be a responsibility upon the Government for the service which is rendered and for the maintenance of the service—another responsibility out of which the Government cannot possibly contract.
So on two counts, both by their words and declarations, accepting the responsibility for avoiding and preventing this kind of disruption of the lives of the public, and also because, as a Government, they maintain this railway service by means of huge public subsidies, the responsibility for the position which we are considering today is fairly and squarely the Government's. Let them answer for it.

4.21 p.m.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. R. J. Gunter): I do not know what effect the speech we have just heard, or the first part of it, had upon the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), but I can only say a solemn prayer and hope that the right hon. Gentleman never finds himself in the Ministry of Labour. His speech revealed a complete ignorance of how our system of collective bargaining works. It may be inadequate, but it does work. We shall certainly think of what we can do to further it, but there was not one point in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in which he offered one constructive idea as to what his party would do if it was in power. He never suggested how a Minister of Labour could automatically sweep into an unofficial strike.
I want to be very careful today not to raise any temperatures, because the position still remains a little delicate. All I want to say to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Committee is that I wish to set out the history of the present unfortunate happenings. The situation, as the right hon. Gentleman has rightly said, came about by unofficial action being taken by certain motormen, particularly on the Southern Region. I do not know whether this will be any comfort to the right hon. Gentleman, but I thoroughly deplore this action. It will not be any comfort to the commuters at Orpington but as Minister of Labour I thoroughly deplore it.
However strongly these men may feel, however much they may feel they would have a strong case before any wage tribunal or arbitration, they have no right to continue this action. They had no right to start it. It is unofficial and it has continued now for a fornight in spite of the appeals of the general secretary of their own union, the Amalgamated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen. The appeal was to those who were taking part in the unofficial action to resume full co-operation and normal working. Despite the rather sneering attitude of the right hon. Gentleman, I am as conscious as he is of the hardships imposed on hundreds of thousands of our citizens.
The Committee will appreciate that, like all unofficial actions, this is damaging to industrial relations in the railways and generally. In the long run, action of this kind will benefit no one. The interests of workers in any industry can only be advanced in a satisfactory, sensible and fair manner by negotiations through the constitutional and agreed procedures. These depend upon the members of unions accepting fully their responsibilities to observe the agreements and procedures of the unions. Every hon. Member knows my views on this and I do not propose to say any more.
I think that it will be helpful if I explain why and how the present situation has arisen. I hope to be forgiven if I go back in time, but history in this matter is of some importance. Motormen in the Southern Region expressed dissatisfaction about their earnings, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, in the autumn of last year. Unofficial action of the kind which is now taking place was threatened in October, and was called off on the promise that further discussion between the Railways Board and the unions would take place. There were discussions in November, but no progress was made and a work to rule, or a withdrawal of full co-operation, began on 11th November. This unofficial action caused inconvenience and dislocation of the services. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will understand that unofficial action always places me and my Ministry in a very difficult position.
Nevertheless, I felt at that time, although I ran a risk of interfering in

unofficial action, that it was right, because of the hardship inflicted upon the public, that I should call the parties together at the Ministry. Talks took place there between representatives of the Railways Board itself and the general secretary of A.S.L.E.F. At that time it was agreed that a national claim for a productivity payment to all train crews, not only in the Southern Region, which had been submitted earlier in the year by A.S.L.E.F., should be the subject of further negotiations, within the agreed machinery of the railway industry. That was to take place immediately and the unofficial action stopped and normal working continued until the present trouble.
I turn to points made, legitimately in my opinion, about what has happened since November; I do not mean legitimate criticism of the Ministry, but perhaps criticisms of the parties. Within that machinery there have been discussions between the Railways Board and the two unions concerned. Discussions have taken place about productivity bonus payments to footplate staff, related to proposed changes in the manning agreements, which would result, as the Railways Board justifiably argued, in higher productivity. These negotiations, where were, in effect, what are now described as productivity bargains, raised many problems which were typical, both for the unions and the Railways Board. They have been examined over recent months by a working party of both sides.
I want to be honest. When I intervened in November I hoped, and I expressed my hope, that these negotiations, when they had been got back within the machinery of negotiation, would come to a conclusion at an early date. I hoped that they would reach a conclusion which was satisfactory, or that they would reach a stage where the board and the unions were clearly not agreed, and when some other action could be taken to settle the issue. I know that there has been criticism of the length of time that has been taken. I have expressed this position very clearly to both sides in the last 48 hours. I would certainly not try to apportion blame. Negotiations on productivity bonuses within so involved a wage structure as that which operates for British Railways are inevitably difficult and complex.
Sometimes I wonder whether we have forgotten that one of the productivity bargains which received the greatest publicity, one of the gems of modern industrial relations, that between the Esso oil company and the unions at Fawley, took nearly two and a half years to negotiate. There are great difficulties, so we should not under-estimate this when we talk about productivity bonuses. They are complex things about which to reach a conclusion.
With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he has very little understanding of the actions and reactions of men within this industry. The negotiations between the Railways Board and the unions have taken place against a very difficult background. First, in recent years there has been a tremendous reorganisation within the industry in an effort to improve efficiency. Inevitably, that reorganisation has led to considerable inconvenience, and in many cases hardship, to men who thought that they had secure jobs. It has made necessary some changes of jobs.
Secondly, because of the reorganisation there has been a steady decline in the numbers employed. I have said before, and I repeat, that it is very easy for us to talk, but the fact is that when men are insecure, and when the fear of redundancy is upon them, they cannot be expected to act in an entirely rational way.
Thirdly, and perhaps this is the most important point—there is a lesson to be learnt here both by this industry and by other sections of industry—while productivity bonus payments, work study incentives, mileage rates, and so on have been applied to certain categories of staff, what might be called substantial minorities, have, because of the nature of the job they perform within industry, never been able to qualify for these bonuses and incentive payments. This has disturbed the existing differential between different groups, and many of the men with whom we are dealing consider that this reflects on their relative value, and on their status in the industry.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: My information from the Southern Region is that in 1962, when it completed its electrification scheme, it carried, and did not declare redundant, the men who were, in fact, redundant.

I accept the point which the right hon. Gentleman is making, that these disputes may arise out of a loss of differential, and a natural objection by motormen to being downgraded relatively, but he ought to make it plain that redundancy is not really the point at issue in this matter.

Mr. Gunter: I was only giving that as an illustration of the sort of thing that can happen. The fact is that we shall probably get assurances from British Railways that there will be no redundancies as a result of this increase in productivity.
The point to remember is that the general atmosphere in which we have to conduct industrial negotiations can never be as good as it should be when the industry is declining and contracting, because motormen, signalmen, controllers, and so on, are wondering and disturbed about whose turn it is to be declared redundant next. That is the background to what I was trying to say.
Whatever the explanation, the fact is that agreement has not been reached. The annual conference of the A.S.L.E.F. met in June. It was given a report of the negotiations that had taken place up to then, and it passed a resolution which precluded further negotiations involving changes in the manning agreement. I want to emphasise that this decision was taken by, as it were, the annual parliament of the union. It was taken in a constitutional way, but, inevitably, it affected the progress of discussions and negotiations between the Board and the unions, and, of course, the situation now is one of complete rigidity.
On the one hand, the unions say, "We want to talk about bonuses, but we are not prepared to talk about any alteration of the manning agreement". On the other hand, the Board says, "We are willing to talk about bonuses, but we are not prepared to talk about them without an alteration of the manning agreement". The result is that the motormen on the Southern Region have taken unofficial action and withdrawn full co-operation, or are working to rule, whatever one wishes to call it, with the consequences to which I have referred.
I have already said that when unofficial action of this kind is taken any Minister of Labour, in any Government, is in a


very difficult position indeed, because it is important that anything that he does should not appear to condone the action of the unofficial workers or to weaken the constitutional procedures. Nevertheless—and I say this in reply to the right hon. Gentleman's statement that I seem to have done nothing—because the interests of the travelling public were involved, I was convinced that I had to intervene, even though the men's action was unofficial.
Accordingly, on Friday of last week I had talks with the Chairman of the Railways Board and with the general secretaries of the A.S.L.E.F. and the N.U.R. I was told—what, in fact, I already knew—that there was to be a formal meeting on Tuesday of this week of the Railway Staff National Council. I sought to acquaint myself with many of the complications that were not then apparent. I had long talks with them, even down to surveying what might happen if certain events took place at the meeting of the Railway Staff National Council.
I could then do no more than wait for the outcome of Tuesday's meeting. As the Committee knows, and as I had expected, it ended in deadlock, but on the Saturday I had told the A.S.L.E.F. that if the meeting on Tuesday ended in deadlock I expected them immediately to call its executive committee and report to me that night, however late it might be. I saw the members of the executive committee on Tuesday. They explained that they were faced with serious difficulties which they would have to consider carefully but one decision at which they had arrived was that they should recall their annual delegate conference which had tied their hands completely. They proposed to meet again on Wednesday morning to consider the date of the recall and the proposals which should be put to the conference. They promised that they would report what steps were to be taken about the unofficial action.
I had a further meeting with the executive yesterday, and perhaps I might summarise their decisions on three points. The annual conference is to meet again on 10th August—that is, in just over two weeks' time. Some people may say

that that is too far ahead, and ask why it could not have been convened earlier. This is a point that I put most forcibly to the members of the A.S.L.E.F. executive. They had gone away on Tuesday promising that they would consider seriously the possibility of recalling the conference, at the latest, on the following Monday or Tuesday. However, they explained to me yesterday that they were in some difficulty. They had given the fullest consideration to my request, but had decided that it was impracticable to recall the conference within so short a time because they wanted to send out a full and complete statement of the situation to all their branches and give them time to consider it before the meeting was held.
What is more—and perhaps this is the most reasonable consideration of all—they wanted to give all their members the opportunity of attending branch meetings at which these serious matters could be discussed. We all appreciate the nature of railway work. Many of the men are away from their homes at awkward times, and have to work a roster system. The executive committee told me that if all the members of the union were to be given an opportunity of expressing their views before the annual conference was recalled, so that the representatives at the conference would know what was at issue, they had to rule out the earlier date which had been discussed.
Now that the executive has decided to recall the final authoritative body in the union in accordance with its rules and constitution, the important thing is that those members who are taking unofficial action should realise that the constitutional way of dealing with the issue is the right way and should cease their unofficial action forthwith.
The executive committee informed me that it had passed a resolution appealing to all members to be loyal to the decision of the executive committee by resuming normal co-operation and working pending the decision of the annual conference. The resolution is being brought to the notice of all branches immediately, and the executive committee gave me its full assurance last night that it will do all it can in the next day or so to impress upon its members that their recommendations should be accepted without reservation.
The third decision taken by the executive committee was on the recommendation that it proposes to put before the recalled conference. The essence of this is that it asks conference to give the committee powers to continue negotiation for a productivity payment for all footplate staff on the basis of
obtaining the highest possible payments and the minimum relaxation of the manning agreement.
There is a break, and it goes on to list certain points of particular concern with which I do not think I need bother the House.
The constitutional democratic process of the union will now ensure that all members will be able to make their views known on the issues which affect them very closely. It will be clear, after the conference, on what basis the issues can be further discussed by the constitutional representatives of the union. It is, therefore, absolutely essential that unofficial, unconstitutional action by members should cease. It is the only basis on which negotiations can proceed in an orderly manner and which provides the only assurance that the interests and views of all members of the union can be properly looked after.
As the result of the events of the last few days, and now that this major development has taken place, I am certain that every member of the public, whether he or she has been affected or not by the unofficial action in the Southern Region, will consider it absolutely unjustifiable for such action to continue. I would say to the House, as I said to the executive committee of the A.S.L.E.F. last night, that, however great the value we put on disputes being settled through agreed constitutional procedures, if the unofficial action does not stop and hardship to the public continues, the Government cannot and will not stand aside.

4.45 p.m.

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: I am sure that the views expressed by the Minister in his final remarks will find a very sympathetic welcome on both sides of the House. As one who represents a constituency which is in the most heavily commuting area, I think it only right that I should underline what my right hon. Friend the Member

for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and the Minister have referred to—the quite appalling conditions under which my constituents have had to travel to and from their work in past weeks.
It is fair to go back a little and to see what they have accepted as part and parcel of the reorganisation of the railways in the post-war years, a reorganisation which has lessened the service available and in the planning of which successive Governments have played their part. In that period from the 1950s to today, they have paid ever-increasing fares, they have fewer trains and they have greatly increased overcrowding, not only as a result of fewer trains but also as a result of a very greatly increased population, particularly in my own constituency where, since 1950, we have absorbed 16,000 from London into a very large London County Council estate.
I was interested to compare an A.B.C. of 1950 with the current edition. The fares from Sidcup and Chislehurst have gone up from 3s. 3d. return to 6s. My constituents have swallowed that increase and balanced it against increased wages and higher cost all round. But it is of interest to find that, whereas in 1950 on weekdays—and that is the traffic which is of interest to commuters travelling to and from work—there were 70 services a day from Chislehurst to Charing Cross and other stations, in 1965 there are 43. From Sidcup to London there were 90 services a day in 1950, and today there are 59. By and large, that has been accepted on the basis of the introduction of faster and perhaps longer trains that would carry more passengers in the peak hours. Many of the services that have been cut out have been afternoon and evening trains. As the figures show, overall they have been cut down to about two-thirds of the number of trains. All this has been accepted by commuters over the years, in the hope that they would, when they got a train, have a faster and good, prompt, punctual service.
With only about two-thirds the number of trains and practically double fares, the Southern Region of British Railways admits that in this area there is over 30 per cent. overcrowding in the peak rush hours. Commuters pay for their season tickets and have a one-in-four chance of getting a seat up and down. Anyone who has travelled down from


Cannon Street, Waterloo or Charing Cross will know that in the peak hours passengers are very tightly jammed in the trains, even when they are all running on time. It is against this background that we have had what has been the last straw to people who take a pride in being at their work on time and who are just as much workers as those running and operating the public service of the railways.
When some reports have said that trains were running 10 or 14 minutes late, there have been vitriolic letters and hollow laughter from my constituents. They say, "It is all very well to say that the 5.3 was 12 minutes late, but what about the 4.30 which they cut out altogether?" Some of my constituents have waited for an hour at Cannon Street and have arrived home anything up to two hours late, and they have been anything up to an hour late getting to work in the mornings. They are decent working folk who want to do their jobs, and they think that it is not only an imposition on them but on their employers because of the enormous number of man-hours they have unwittingly lost over the past few years.
I am one of those who take pride in the structure of this country and the joint industrial employer-employee negotiations which we have. I am not one of those who would like to see industrial wages and working conditions imposed by Government action. I believe that both sides in their respective industries can work out from their knowledge and skill the conditions, wages and the reorganisations that from time to time must come.
If for any reason they fail in that duty and if they hold many thousands of the public to ransom, as they are now doing, then we have reached a stage when we must say to the unions, "You are vast, you are powerful and when you want a closed shop and some independently-minded little chap will not join the union, you can get rid of him quickly enough. When you have rebels, why cannot you yield the same power of sanction when executive agreements honourably made across the table between both sides of an industry, pledges and promises solemnly given, are constantly broken by a rebel and destructive minority and sheer chaos is created for thousands of people travelling on the railways?" I believe

that it is time that the executives of these unions were sharply reminded by the Minister that they have the power and that it is their responsibility and that if they are to continue to have freedom of negotiations jointly with the employers, they must accept the responsibility of disciplining their own members.

Mr. Gunter: I am following this argument with interest. What has always baffled me about this argument, which I have heard frequently, is that if a trade union is to discipline a member, in other words, to expel him from membership, it is a meaningless exercise unless there is a closed shop so that he loses his job at the same time. The right hon. Lady should make her choice.

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: I would not say that the trade union movement was devoid of powers to discipline members on a go-slow.
We have paid higher fares and every time we have been promised better services. We now have fewer trains and not the swifter and larger trains we wanted. If part of the drive for efficiency means new manning arrangements, no one will argue about the bonus for the new system of manning. But what we appear to be being told is that the cause of the rebellion and the go-slow is that the rebels are asking for the bonus as a reward for more concentrated effort, but are refusing to accept the new form of manning being tied to the bonus.
Mr. Greene has been reported as describing defiance of the executive's advice as leading to anarchy. My constituents are sick and tired of the Government regretting and the union deploring. As they say in letter after letter and 'phone call after 'phone call, it is always the travelling public which pays.
I hope that the Minister will increase his endeavours to bring a very speedy solution for the long-suffering people in the commuting areas who are spending up to three hours a day more than they need in wasted working time and lost leisure.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. Albert Murray: During the last nine months we seem to have had the age of discovery by the Conservative Party. After 15th October, the Conservatives discovered pensioners.


Within the last couple of months they have discovered rising prices.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Samuel Storey): Order. There is nothing about pensioners or rising prices in this Vote.

Mr. Murray: I was drawing an analogy.
Now they have discovered commuters. One would think from the argument of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who is not a commuter and who does not represent a London commuting constituency, that the problems of commuters had suddenly arisen, but the commuters of North Kent have been suffering severe hardships from overcrowding and other travelling difficulties since the end of the war.
The reason for the debate is that the Opposition are trying to make political capital at a very difficult time in the midst of trade union and employer negotiations. The problem of commuting travel has not just appeared. I have received letters from commuters not since being elected, but since being the candidate at Gravesend, letters complaining about difficulties getting to and from work. These were commuters between 1951 and 1964, commuting on the most heavily used line anywhere in the world, and the Conservative Party did not seem to make any effort to solve the problems during that time.
Indeed, the transport legislation of 1962 aggravated the problems of commuters outside the area of the London Transport Board. My commuters know their trains, not affectionately, as the "sardine specials" and the "cattle trucks". If the R.S.P.C.A. found cattle travelling in the same sort of conditions, they would probably have sued the Minister long ago.
The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West spoke about redundancy, but how many hon. Members opposite know the fears of redundancy among men who have been working at their jobs since they were boys? It is possible that I will become redundant [Laughter.] I have worked in a job which has known the fears of redundancy and hon. Members opposite will not gain the political capital they want by jeering

and laughing. I was on Gravesend station at a quarter to eight this morning—

Mr. Christopher Chataway: As the hon. Member was presumably sent here largely because his party offered to the electorate at the last election fewer strikes and lower prices, and as exactly the opposite has occurred and we have had almost record increases in both, does he not at least feel that he ought to express some regret?

Mr. Murray: I offer no regret at all to the hon. Gentleman. I cannot recall that my election manifesto spoke of fewer strikes. A change of Government does not change the hearts of many employers. Has it changed the attitude of the gentleman we were discussing earlier, a gentleman named Harvey, of the British Printing Corporation?
The problems of the commuters should have been considered not just by the last Conservative Government, but by the Labour Government before that. In the South-East we have reached saturation point, whether travelling by road during the rush hour, or on the heavily over-crowded trains. About 2,000 commuters travel from Gravesend during the peak hours and they want something to be done. They want to know that there is to be some relief in future. They appreciate that this is not just a short-term problem and that the Government have to take some vital decisions about their future well-being.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: How can the hon. Gentleman reconcile his statement about the South-East with the decision of the Minister of Housing and Local Government to allow development between Hartley and Ash, in Kent, development which will grossly overload the existing facilities?

Mr. Murray: I am coming to that. I wish to make a criticism of the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
Commuters from Gravesend and most other parts of Kent who travel during a working life of 40 years will spend about three years on a train, most of the time standing. The Government should not be panicked by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, but should consider its long-term propositions


for the commuting in this heavily-built-up area. All credit to the staff of British Rail, who have had real difficulty in putting two quarts into a pint pot.
I want the Minister of Transport to consider providing another pot or two. We need to look at the termini in London, because these are where the difficulties occur. We should examine the difficulties created at places like Dartford and Dartford Junction, where three of the lines from North-West Kent converge, or at the Borough Market Junction. These are the points where the difficulties for commuters occur because of the convergence of the lines from North Kent at these important points.
One thing which should be done, and British Rail has made a start, is that all commuter trains should be declassified. All trains during commuter peak hours should have only one class. It has been found that first-class compartments are, at maximum, only 60 per cent. full and, at minimum, 25 per cent. full. British Rail has already tried this on one or two trains and finds that it is working most successfully. These are some of the things which are needed to relieve the discomfort of people spending, in normal times—if travelling in commuter trains can ever be called normal—three hours each day standing in a train either going to London or returning to their homes.
We should also consider whether more Government Departments can move out to the areas from which commuters are travelling, to help with employment in these areas. One of the things missing in all the areas concerned is Government Departments and offices. We need more Government encouragement to light industry. In my constituency land is available for light industries, to give people the opportunity to work in their own areas.

Mr. F. A. Burden: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that we should have many more Government offices, in addition to those we already have?

Mr. Murray: This is a question of dispersal. I had hoped that the hon. Member, who represents Gillingham—a commuting constituency—would understand.
We should also consider the good old London tube. The Borough of Camberwell asked in 1921–44 years ago—for a tube extension to Camberwell. If we are

to relieve the pressure in Central London, different forms of transport must be provided. If proceeded with, this tube would cost a great deal of money, but we have to consider new projects like this for their social benefits rather than their purely financial implications.
We might find methods of easing people's difficulties by way of some more surveys like those which they have in the United States on commuter problems. It would be interesting to find out from doctors in commuting constituencies how many of the illnesses and complaints with which they deal can be attributed to the stresses and strains of commuter travel. I am certain that, by providing a new tube to what is, I believe, the only part of London not provided with tubes nearby, we should be getting nearer to solving people's problems.
The provision of a new tube would cost a great deal of money, but when one thinks of the amounts of money which have been spent on things like Blue Streak and abortive weapons over the years, one realises that 1 per cent. of the total of £20,000 million defence expenditure in the last decade would have solved the commuting problem in the South-East. I hope that the Minister of Labour's survey on the co-ordination of transport will give many answers to the commuting problems, but it is not just the answers we want: we want the will of the Government to put through measures which will give not just short-term relief which hon. Members opposite have spoken about, but real, long-term, benefits in travelling for our constituents, the people of south-east England.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I should like to spend one moment reducing the temperature. I take no exception to the survey which the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Murray) has just made of the commuter problem. Most of us with experience of it would agree that many of the things he said were correct, but he left out of his speech perhaps the most important fact, which is that this debate is about the action of a minority which has led to the situation which now has to be discussed—

Mr. Ron Lewis: No. It is political.

Mr. Deedes: I have no wish or intention to argue the details of this dispute, over which none of us has any influence, and, possibly, in the light of what the Minister said, the less we try to argue the details the better. This is not an occasion for recriminations. It is more profitable to look at some of the very serious implications which arise from the situation and to see what, if anything, can be done to avoid a repetition of this disastrous occurrence.
For large numbers of commuters, no matter from whose constituency they travel, this has been disastrous. It has not been simply inconvenient or troublesome; it has been disastrous. This episode reminds all of us that for some hundreds of thousands of people round London—not simply in Kent, but elsewhere—the railway has become a lifeline. I am not sure that this unwilling dependence of so many on a railway line is socially a very good thing, but we have at least been reminded of how much they count on it.
If anything goes wrong with that lifeline, they are in trouble. I want to stress this, because it helps to explain the indignation and high feelings which have been shown by some commuters. This has not simply been a display of bad temper or exasperation with the trade unions. It is not simply that fares have gone up regularly about once every nine months over the last 10 years. It is not simply the discomfort of daily travel, overcrowding and the occasional delay which no one is able to explain.
What has been going on in recent weeks on the Southern Region has, in the minds of a great many daily travellers, imperilled their jobs. When we talk about the fear of unemployment or redundancy in relation to this problem, this is something which we should bear in mind. There is a limit to how often one can arrive in the office 30 minutes late and say, "I am sorry: it is the railways again." There is a limit for many people. A moment comes when the head of the department says, "Either you change your home or we must change your job." That has been the underlying stress in the minds of a great many people—

Mr. Ron Lewis: Surely, that argument applies to the railwaymen?

Mr. Deedes: Perhaps the hon. Member would let me make my speech in my own way and later he may be able to make a speech of his own.
Nobody discussing this problem should underrate the anguish of mind in many family circles to which commuters belong. These drivers who—as they see it, justifiably—hesitate to accept the strings attached to this bonus on the grounds that it could imperil their future employment should have this thought at the back of their minds. We should be clear about this. Tens of thousands of people are living and travelling very near the limit and on very narrow limits. They are dependent on a handful of railwaymen. Indeed, they may be dependent on one railwayman. I agree with the hon. Member for Gravesend that the load, the peak, has reached such a stage, certainly on the Southern Region, that one mistake can disrupt the working day for tens of thousands of people.
That being so, it is hard to imagine a more critical sphere for unofficial industrial action by a minority. That is why all hon. Members will applaud the words with which the Minister of Labour concluded his speech. They were quite unequivocal. They were not calculated to inflame, but they left us in no doubt as to what is in his mind.
When such action is taken, and apparently self-justified as a legitimate exercise in collective bargaining—as a means of securing something better or avoiding something less good—we have an immensely serious industrial situation. It is, perhaps, as well to put on the record something which the hon. Member for Gravesend did not say; simply that the action is wrong. That is why I applaud what the Minister of Labour said because he admitted that it is wrong. Industrial language can be used today to make words mean anything their user desires them to mean, often in phrases calculated to conceal the merits of the case.
This minority action is wrong and impossible to condone, however much sympathy one may have with the background. Coming from a railway town, I do not lack sympathy with railwaymen, but this view must be made clear because if it is not we will get into a fearful state of confusion. I find it harder to assert that the circumstances leading


to this wrong action were wholly within the control of the railway engine drivers. In reality, the blame rests impersonally on the hopelessly outmoded wage structure of the railways and the outmoded system of wage negotiation. These are things in which neither side has any confidence and, for this, management, Government—the former Government and the present one; I concede that readily—as well as the trade unions share some blame.
Dr. Beeching went a long way towards modernising the railways. He got nowhere at all towards modernising the wage structure and bargaining machinery. I therefore ask the Minister of Transport and his colleagues this crucial question. Is this subject going back on the shelf again when this dispute ends? It will be scandalous if it does. Surely it is not beyond the wit, the reason, of management—

Mr. Ron Lewis: Why did not the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues do something about it when they were in power?

Mr. Deedes: —and unions, in the light of this affair, to devise somewhat better machinery which may avoid the repetition of a situation which is disastrous to both sides.

Mr. Ron Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman had 13 years in which to do something about it.

Mr. Deedes: I must make it clear to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) that good trade unionism is bleeding to death in this dispute. The dispute is bad for the railways, passengers and management—but for trade unionism it is absolutely deadly. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will fasten their minds on that fact. The Minister of Labour knows it and I have no doubt that the Minister of Transport does, too.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Really.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) must not keep interrupting. If he wishes to speak later he will, no doubt, try to catch my eye.

Mr. Deedes: I am not making an unduly controversial speech.

Mr. Ron Lewis: You are.

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Deedes: The hon. Member for Carlisle should take note of what I am going to say next. The root of this dispute lies in one simple fact which must be understood, whether or not it suits hon. Gentlemen opposite. In the last four years British Railways has reduced its staff by 100,000, probably more proportionately than any other industry. About 2,000 miles of track has been cut out, along with 700 stations and 900 freight depots. That has been right. It was inevitable in the present condition of the railways and for the benefit of the railwaymen in future. Indeed, the process continues.
The Minister of Labour may be right or wrong but, as I understand it, the scheme which it was desired to attach to this purpose was designed to ultimately lead to a reduction of 10,000 footplate men and a saving of about £7 million. That is really the crux of the matter. In this most difficult situation I am not saying that the scheme has been ill-handled. My experience is that a railway town management has an enlightened and straightforward way of dealing with trade unions, keeping all concerned in the picture about the major changes which take place.
The point to remember for the future is that the railways are still going through this difficult phase of reducing manpower to the level that is needed in 1965. There-in lies a lot of trouble for the future, unless some lessons are learned from this dispute. The most depressing thing about the dispute is the inevitable setback which has been given to the railway's recovery, particularly on the Southern Region, especially to the re-establishment which was going on of the railwaymen in public esteem. It revives the ugly disposition which I had hoped was behind us—of people speaking more in anger than in sorrow about the railways being "a shambles" and "a scandal". It revives some of the old antagonisms which we had between staff and passengers some years back. And it is unfortunately equally bad for the morale of those who work in and travel on the railways.
Having said that, I must say that I do not think that this is irreparable. If there is a settlement reasonably soon—and


I thought that the progress set out by the Minister of Labour sounded quite alarmingly protracted—I believe that the position can be repaired. However, no hon. Member should run away with the idea that the situation which has given rise to all this will solve itself if it is left alone, because it will not.

Mr. Albert Evans: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain how his remarks about the current difficulties can be related to the broad and difficult problem of commuters to and from the Greater London area? He has spent a considerable amount of his speech talking of this local, present difficulty, but has not the broad problem of travelling in Greater London yet to be dealt with?

Mr. Deedes: If the hon. Gentleman had waited for me to say one more sentence he would have had an answer to that question.
As I was saying, this difficulty will not solve itself by itself. Three factors at least enter into it; first, the growing pressure on the commuter services, secondly, the urgent need for large new capital construction, and, thirdly, the outmoded machinery for wage negotiations and negotiating the manpower situation. These are all potentially explosive factors. I am tempted to add "trade union law", but I will not do so in this debate. None of these three factors will get better if they are left alone. Sooner or later they will lead inexorably to a repetition of this terrible imposition on travellers.
It is, therefore, to be hoped that Ministers, against whom I have avoided all recrimination in this matter, will realise these factors and bring their influence to bear, not just now, while the current dispute is going on, but afterwards. So often we meet these situations with promises to look deeper into them, but when the dispute has been solved the problems are again put to one side. If the Ministers concerned will deal with these matters and follow through the dispute after it has ended some good may ultimately emerge from this miserable affair.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Peter Shore: My remarks will not follow closely on those

of the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) because, like other hon. Gentlemen opposite, he rather overworked one aspect of a complex and very big problem indeed. Even taking the one aspect of the labour problem, as it were, affecting commuters' travel, the right hon. Gentleman dealt only with the immediate dispute situation which, one hopes, will disappear as soon as a settlement is reached.
For many hundreds of thousands of people around London the problem of London's commuter services is not so much when the trains are not operating but when they are operating; this is when the real problem arises. Even dealing purely with the labour side, if I may emphasise the narrowness of approach here, one would hardly think that one of the most difficult problems facing the London Passenger Transport services was the shortage of labour.
Yet many vehicles are not being used because of lack of recruitment of men for the long-distance buses, and so on, which are all part of the commuter problem. This approach has been overworked. I shall not follow that line, but will, instead, turn to what I believe to be much more fundamental aspects of the problem.
As I see it, we are faced with three important problems. Before I deal with those problems, let me say that by "commuter travel" I mean the journey to work. That at once brings into the picture at least one factor that has so far been left out. There are many London transport problems, but the journey to work is the crucial problem. It is the problem of getting people into London to work between 7 o'clock and 10 o'clock in the morning, on a great tidal wave, and out again in the evening between 5 o'clock and 7 o'clock.
Almost the first principle which must guide policy is that we must be concerned with the amount of work in the major city centres. I do not want to be unduly aggressive to hon. and right hon. Members opposite, but I do not think that any of them would now agree that the policy of not controlling the location of work, of offices, in the centre of London during the past 13 years was wise—in retrospect, at any rate. I am sure that they do not now agree that it was


wise. I except the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) from these strictures, of course.
Today, 1,300,000 people are being dumped in the centre of London between these hours, and an extra 200,000 have arrived here during the last 10 years. Further, although the first thing my right hon. Friends did on coming to office was to put a stop to new office building, there are now another 200,000 jobs in the pipeline; buildings now standing empty that must be used, and others half constructed. Therefore, the problem has been enormously accentuated during the years by the lack of control over the location of work in the heart of London, and we have not developed pari passu with the growth of work in the centre, a growth of the public transport services. Until recently, there has been no attempt to co-ordinate the two, or event to think of them in terms of related and linked policies.
The collection of people from their homes to their places of work is a second major problem. We have to be clear that any sensible policy for dealing with this aspect must accept that it will be a job for the public transport services—there can be no argument about that at all. Why one says that with such conviction is that we all know what it is to try to drive around London in our cars, even outside the worse periods of the day. We know how desperately difficult and slow the journey is across London in those hours.
As a result, we have to maintain public transport services of a very high order. That they have not been built and maintained to the standards required was graphically described by the right hon. Lady the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith); people are being squeezed together, and have been for years. It is absolute misery for them, and there is no prospect of relief, because the planning and programming of new transport facilities for commuters has fallen way behind the actual growth of work in the centre.
What is the third basic factor in public transport for the commuter in the London area? It is that public transport will not be able to operate on ordinary commercial principles. It will not be able to pay for itself, and accumulate the

surplus needed for heavy capital investment in things like tube lines, major extensions of Southern electric railways, and so on. It will not be able to do that.
I should like to quote the concluding words of the introductory statement in the Annual Report of the London Transport Board for the year ending 31st December, 1964. I think that the Board meant all of us who read this document to note this in particular. It states:
The adverse trends shown by the year's working, and the need for heavy expenditures on new underground railway construction to meet changing demands, must now begin to cast serious doubts on London Transport's future ability to reconcile the two main duties laid on it by Parliament—to provide an adequate service to the public in the London area, and at the same time to pay its way.
Before we get polemical about the public transport services paying their way, I think that we can all agree that the problem facing those services in London is unique—and particularly because of this tidal flow of commuters in the morning and in the evening. As I understand it, during the rest of the day London Transport buses and trains are used to only 10 per cent. of capacity, while they are used 100 per cent. during the peak hours. The enormous over-investment in that sense to meet this terribly uneconomic need for a short period of the day is bound to be formidable.
Having said that, I should like to look now at the solutions. We are getting rather tired of the attempts made during the years—and I say "we" because I speak now almost as a commuter—to solve the problem. One way is to do what the right hon. Lady and others complain about—continue to push up commuter fares There is not much promise in that line of development, first, because I sympathise with the commuter and, secondly—and thinking, perhaps, in more practical terms—every rise in commuter fares sends an extra margin of people away from public transport to try to use their own private vehicle. That fact has contributed to the vicious circle, particularly in road transport, with less use of public services, and so on. So a solution will not be found just by pushing up commuter fares.
What is the second solution? I do not know what is in my right hon. Friend's mind, but he made an interesting


announcement a month or two ago. He said that London Transport would this year run into the red unless he allows a fares rise, so he proposes to operate a subsidy for this year, at any rate. Looking at the long-term intentions, we may accept the logic of this decision, because those who say that we do not want commuter fares put up must agree that this is the logical alternative. I am told that many other countries do this, and that many other big cities have to pay some form of subsidy.
However, I can understand why Ministers have in the past always been slightly reluctant to embark on this policy, because once we start paying subsidies we are never quite sure about how efficiently the thing is being run. Also, in the light of the tight Treasury situation we face today—a situation with which hon. Members opposite were faced not so long ago, and which I consider we are likely to be faced with in years to come—those heavy payments which will have to be made if we are to get any improvement in the commuter service will mean that Ministers of Transport will have to be extremely aggressive men to get their share from the Treasury.
With that in mind I have thought of an alternative which I put to my hon. Friend with some diffidence. If we accept the argument so far it seems that there is only one alternative to a subsidy or constantly rising fares. The proposal I wish to throw into the pool—perhaps to have it knocked back at me—is that we should put the full cost of the journey to work on to the employer, but only the full cost of the journey to work. This may seem a strange suggestion, but the argument for it would be on the lines of social costs generally. I think all hon. Members would agree that people do not naturally as a matter of free choice get into these "sardine trucks" and travel in these awful conditions in and out of London in peak hours for five days a week. Why do they do it? Because their job is there.
The employer, by making his decision to locate his office in the heart of a great city, creates individual and social costs which are then inflicted on the rest of the community just as in a sense we may say that an employer who burns things which

through his chimney produce smoke pollution produces a social cost which he—not the community and not the individuals living there—should meet. So I put to the Minister the proposition that there may well be a case—I do not say all at once, this could be gradually introduced to see whether the argument would stand up—for putting this cost which is essentially a social cost, mainly on employers for the journey to work, and only the journey to work.

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: How does the hon. Member reconcile loading this responsibility on the employer with the deliberate policy of all authorities in the great cities of transporting to out-county areas their inner populations in order that they may have a house and garden in a green belt district?

Mr. Shore: I think there is no conflict here. In a sense we want to do both things. The ideal policy is not only to get people out of the centres of cities but for them to take their work along with them. This is the concept of new towns to which we have all subscribed ever since the war.
The suggestion I put forward seems to have one or two quite obvious advantages. It would mean that the extra revenue would accrue directly to the providers of public transport and the Minister of Transport would not have to fight—as I am sure he will have to fight—against the Treasury to get his share if the alternative subsidy proposal is adopted.
A second advantage would be that this would have a positive effect of encouraging employers to stagger hours, because the essence of the proposal would be that the cost of the journey to work would fall upon them only if they brought people to work within the hours of peak congestion. It would be open to them to mitigate their costs and avoid this obligation because they would not be creating a social cost if they asked people to come to work after 10 o'clock in the morning when ordinary transport facilities can cope with the problem. This would apply only if they insisted that everyone should come to work within the crowded peak hours.

Mr. Albert Evans: My hon. Friend's novel suggestion is of great interest, but I cannot see how it would be possible to


lay upon employers who insist on bringing staffs into great cities the cost of travel in and out of London. I do not see how it would be possible to fix the cost on the employers who insist on bringing their people into London.

Mr. Shore: There are many different ways of doing this, but my idea would be that the employer would give vouchers or passes covering the costs that their individual employees incurred in travelling from their homes to their places of work and back again.

5.35 p.m.

Sir Leslie Thomas: The short intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) exposed the fallacy of the argument of the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) when he suggested that the cost of individual commuters' travel should be imposed upon employers. The effect, as she rightly suggested, could have the most serious implications for housing and planning authorities in the Greater London area.
I agree with many of the arguments of the hon. Member, particularly when he referred to something between 1 million and 1½ million commuters to London daily and said that the increase in the last 10 years has been about 200,000. He was quite right to bring out those figures. They show a trend which will go on unless something is done about development in the City of London and the Greater London area. Possibly further more strenuous action will have to be taken about staggering office hours. There has been a considerable amount of talk about that, but little action. Much more has to be done in that direction.
I was very much impressed by a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) when he spoke about redundancy. He was contradicted by an hon. Member opposite, who is not now in his place, who suggested that there should be no fear of redundancy or insecurity in the minds of London commuters. I can assure the Committee, as one who represents a constituency in the south-eastern section of the Southern Region in which there are tens of hundreds of commuters,

and as president of a commuters' travel association, that many men and women have come to see me at my "surgeries" and expressed this fear.
The hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Murray) assumed that hon. Members on this side of the Committee were not conscious of the implications and fears of redundancy in the minds of working people. I remind him that there are hon. Members on this side of the Committee who have far more experience of the working class, particularly of railwaymen, going over a longer period than he has. If he reads the recommendations of the Boundary Commission about constituencies he might find growing fears of redundancy creeping into his mind before the next election.
About 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. of my postbag comes from commuters to London who are suffering from the present strained labour relations on the Southern Region. Over a number of years I have received a heavy post containing complaints from travellers on this section. Over the years they have suffered possibly more than any other section of the travelling public. There has been a series of incidents and accidents, ranging from burned out signal boxes, which caused much more disruption over a much longer period than has the present labour dispute, to continual points failures, signal failures, poor rolling stock, overcrowded sardine-like conditions, and now working to rule and unofficial striking. The life of the commuter on the North-East Kent line particularly has become one of frustration and misery and his life has been completely disrupted.

Mr. Ron Lewis: What does the hon. Gentleman intend to do about it?

Sir L. Thomas: It is a question of what support the hon. Gentleman will give his own Front Bench in doing something about this. One of the things which causes a sense of frustration has resulted from a piece of legislation which my party passed when it was in office. I supported it. I refer to the jurisdiction of the Railway Rates Tribunal over the fares increases imposed by the management on those who live outside the London Transport area. I represent commuters who live outside that area. The Railway Rates Tribunal refused to allow


the railways to increase their fares in the London Transport area last February, but some of the commuters I represent suffered an increase of up to 7 per cent. They travel in trains to the same destination with people who are benefiting from the decision of the tribunal. When people sitting in the same carriage discussing the effects of increases in fares on their pockets, and when it is found that one section is being discriminated against, there is bound to be a frame of mind which is not conducive to good public relations between the customer and the man supplying the service.
The opening speakers confined themselves to the existing dispute. There are many reasons why the commuting service to London has deteriorated. I hope that in the not-too-distant future, even after this dispute is settled—I hope that it will be settled quickly—the Minister of Transport will come with me to Cannon Street when some of my constituents are departing and see for himself the conditions in which they have to travel distances up to 80 miles. The general manager of the Southern Region wrote an article which appeared in the Evening Standard a few weeks ago in which he said that, if he was to make the railways pay, he would have to pack the passengers in rather like sardines. There is no doubt that today, particularly as British Railways have this terrific monopoly outside the London Transport area, the management or executive has diminished the service provided to the customers. Tea cars and buffet cars have been taken away. There is poorer rolling stock. There is overcrowding. There are increased fares.

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: Would the hon. Gentleman say whether this has happened during the last nine months?

Sir L. Thomas: I will give the hon. Gentleman another indication. I spent the first years of my working life on the railway. I worked in a timetable department. The management recently announced summer schedules to the public. Last Sunday when I travelled up to London I saw a notice in front of the booking office regretting that certain trains would have to be withdrawn because there were not the guards to man them. What an extraordinary situation.

This never happened in my time. After all the work that goes into the preparation of a timetable it is apparent that the management has not consulted the personnel side to ensure that it can be done.
At this moment—I hope that it will be very temporary—commuters are suffering from strained labour relations. The Minister of Labour has given us the timetable of events over the past few months. I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford. This decision by the motormen or by some of the motormen in this section to work to rule is nothing by a war of attrition directed at the management to force a decision in their own favour. I do not think that anyone can deny that. It is the commuters who are suffering. Serious incidents have already occurred. The Minister of Transport knows that I went to see him. He knows how perturbed I was about it. I saw the Minister of Labour last Monday fortnight. If this goes on, there is no doubt but that there will be even more serious incidents. Perhaps this might be a good thing in some ways, if it opened up a new approach in the negotiating machinery and in the long run led to improved labour relations.
I believe that in the negotiations between management and trade unions for conditions of service and conditions of pay two main principles must be borne in mind. If trade union leaders cannot exact from their followers that respect for their authority which is their due and if their authority is completely ignored, if the trade union leaders have lost the respect of their men and it is time they went and handed over to somebody who can exercise authority and produce a proper sense of discipline
I believe that management and employers, whether in the nationalised industries or in private industry, must never concede to force, as we saw in the unofficial strike last Friday and in this work-to-rule action of the militant section in the south-eastern area. They must never concede to force those things which they are not prepared to concede to reason and across the negotiating table.
This problem of the committee falls under the two heads of cost and efficiency of operation and labour relations is included in the latter. But there is no


doubt that the commuter to London has not had value for his money under either of those heads, and the efficiency of the national economy is daily and hourly becoming impaired. I would remind management and the trade unions and those who are working to rule that the commuter is the one who is paying the price. He is not only paying ever-increasing charges but as a taxpayer he is meeting the subsidies which keep the railways moving and the management and the railwaymen in their jobs. If the situation is allowed to continue I do not think that the London commuter can be expected to maintain his patience much longer.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. George Wallace: We have heard in the debate so far—and I am sorry that I was not here during the early stages—a great deal about the commuter. The Committee is looking at one at this very moment. I do not run a car and I have been a commuter of long standing, in both senses of the word. I raised this question of the problems of the London commuters and of London travel about 20 years ago in this Chamber. Since then there has been very little improvement. In some respects the situation has become worse.
The real root of the trouble is the unrestricted office building which has been allowed to go on in London. This not only provides a travel problem for the commuter but an increasing problem of where he or she can get lunch. Today in London it is becoming increasingly difficult to get a meal during the lunch hour provided by employers.
The right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), who is not now in his place, referred to the present dispute. I feel that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee should try to steer clear of any speech which might increase the present difficulties. The hon. Member said, first, that the present dispute would cause many people to lose their jobs due to their arriving late at the office. I cannot accept that as a fact. Before I came to the House I was an office manager, and I can tell the Committee that the experiences of the commuter owing to the present unfortunate dispute are experiences which he has frequently undergone in trying to reach the office in winter in fog, ice and snow.
Many a time, with fellow-travellers in the true sense of the word, in stations like Cannon Street people have fought not only to get on a train but to stand up straight and breathe when they have got on it. Some of the situations in the past have been shocking. Mob rule has nothing on it. For all these years crowded travel by train has been a tremendous physical ordeal. One has often had to open windows to prevent a young typist or a youth from fainting.
The travel problems which have now arisen are not due to the present strike. They have been growing over a period of years and have been bedevilled in many ways because of office building in London. It is true that there is now restriction on office building and that many industries are moving out into the outer London ring. The result of the present situation may be to persuade people to work locally. They will probably receive a smaller wage packet, but they will derive benefit from saving on railway fares and in having a decent time for meals.
There is no short-term solution to this problem. One of the things which need urgent attention is the replanning of London stations. Cannon Street is undergoing tremendous alterations, but London Bridge needs a face-lift, if not something more drastic. The situation there is chaotic during the rush hours. We should push ahead with the provision of lines to places like Hither Green where commuters can change trains and avoid main line trains coming into London.
Although I represent an East Anglian constituency, I live on the outskirts of London in the commuter belt, and one point about commuter travel has puzzled me for many years. We hon. Members often go out on the Terrace on a fine summer evening when we get one, on an average once every two or three months, and we watch the River Thames. It beats me why on earth we do not use the Thames more. Now, with modern developments, we have high-speed river craft which could be used. To a great extent the travel problem could be eased by more extensive use of London's river. Some years ago an employer of mine, since deceased, a member of the other place, in association with other people, started a river bus service, but it was not publicised enough or supported enough.


I am sure that with the co-operation of employers it would be possible to set up a transport system on London's river. Continental cities like Stockholm use river services. Why do not we use the Thames more and ease things for the commuter?
All we want is a seat on the train, time to have lunch and the means of getting home in reasonable time, ready for a little relaxation, instead of being utterly exhausted and upsetting the wife and the rest of the family and feeling only too pleased to get to bed.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: Every hon. Member who has spoken from the back benches so far either represents a commuter area or is himself a commuter, like the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace), who has just spoken. To a very large extent, my constituents are commuters. Many thousands of them travel into the centre of London every day. It might be thought that they are more fortunate than others because they have a choice of three forms of public transport open to them, the Southern Region of British Railways, the tube or the buses. But, as I shall show, even though they have these three choices, they are not as fortunate as all that. I wish to speak about these three different forms of commuter transport and make one or two suggestions to the Minister.
I say at once that recent events on the Southern Region, with the go-slow of the motormen, have not so far, happily, affected my constituents. There was a little delay last night at one of the southern railway stations, I believe, but, by and large, we have not yet been affected, and I hope very much that we shall not be. There is little that I can usefully add to what has already been said about this particular dispute. Indeed, I think that there is little any of us can say to help to solve it, as we all want to do, except that I echo what has been said from these benches in saying how delighted I was to hear the Minister of Labour's firm statement of his position and firm feelings about the action at present going on. I hope that, through his good offices, the dispute will be solved quickly. I hope, also, that both he and

the Minister of Transport will direct their minds to ensuring that, so far as possible, it does not develop again. If it is just left, as it could so easily be, with the press of other events upon Ministers, it will raise its head again at some time in the future.
I wish to speak about some of the slightly longer-term solutions to the commuter travel problem. Some of those hon. Members whose constituencies are affected by the present dispute have tended to speak as though it has made travel very difficult, whereas, in the ordinary way, it is quite comfortable. In tact, it is not comfortable at all. Anyone travelling into London by rail, tube or bus faces a long and exhausting struggle, morning and evening, five or six days a week. On many occasions during the rush hours, I have been to the tube station at Morden, which is at one end of the Northern Line, and seen the vast numbers of people struggling, first, on to the platform and then struggling to stand jammed shoulder to shoulder and face to face in the trains.
There does not seem to me to be a great deal one could suggest to improve this particular situation. One hon. Member suggested that we might extend the tube. Simply extending it would make matters no better. It would probably make them worse because, if one extended the tube beyond Morden, for instance, it would simply mean that my constituents would find the trains full when they tried to get on them.

Mr. Murray: I was not suggesting that the existing tube should be extended in that way. I suggested constructing a tube where there is no tube at present.

Mr. Atkins: I am grateful for that correction. Constructing a new tube line would provide some solution, but—I shall be corrected if I am wrong—it would probably be the most expensive solution one could devise. Such a scheme for the Northern Line was considered some years ago, the idea being to duplicate the tunnel so as to run extra services. I cannot remember the figure now, but the estimated cost about ten years ago, when I looked into it, was quite astronomical, and it would be even greater now. Moreover, there would be no hope of it being remunerative.
There is little chance that more trains can be run on the tubes as they are. The trains are run as close together as is safe now, and no one would suggest that they should be run closer than London Transport regards as safe. Nevertheless, there are possibilities for alleviating some of the trouble. For instance, it might be possible, without enormous expense, to elongate some of the stations so that longer trains could be run. I realise that they are very long now and they fill up the platforms of the present stations; but, if the platforms were made longer, two more coaches could be tacked on to each train. This would require no more staff at the stations or on the trains, but it would provide extra capacity.
One act of Government policy, both of the previous Government and of this, has made conditions on the tube in recent years rather worse. I refer to the encouragement given to London Transport to provide car parks at its tube stations on the outskirts of London. This has been done and has, naturally, helped the car traffic problem in Central London, but it has not made travel by tube any easier because there are, if anything, rather more people using the tubes.
The third means by which my constituents commute is by bus, both the London red buses and the Green Line buses as well. It seems to me that the main disadvantage of travelling in and out of London by bus or coach is the uncertainty about how long the journey will take because of varying traffic conditions. We all realise the extreme difficulty of maintaining schedules in present traffic conditions. However hard the drivers try—I have a great admiration for the London bus drivers, taken as a whole—they find it almost impossible to maintain schedules. We can reasonably look for some improvement here, not, perhaps, in the immediate future but later on, and any improvement one can make in the bus services available to carry people in and out of London would ease the load on the trains and be a great advantage.
In recent years a great deal has been done in London by traffic engineering schemes to keep traffic flowing more freely than before and faster than before even though the volume has increased. This must have helped the buses, too. If the Minister who is to reply can spare

a moment for this subject, I shall be glad to have his assurance that traffic engineering schemes are going ahead just as fast as they were previously and that he has in mind, perhaps, further schemes for what is called tidal flow similar to that in operation over Albert Bridge. Has he schemes in mind for applying this kind of flow not just to bridges over the river but to the main roads into London? Has he plans to adopt a practice which is common in some other countries of altering the number of lanes in a road available for traffic moving in one direction or the other, either in the morning or in the evening? All this could help.
There is another way of helping to speed traffic particularly on the main roads, that is, by using one of the many schemes now available to link traffic signals so that through traffic does not have to stop more often than necessary. There are several systems of this kind, and some are in operation on the Continent. Is there any hope of such a scheme being used on the main roads into London?
Now, a longer-term solution. There are many ambitious schemes of road improvement and road construction in and around London. For example, there are plans to bring the M.1 motorway nearer to the middle of London. Over a period of years, the main roads into London are to be improved and extended and new ones will be constructed. We are all now accustomed to the idea of setting aside parts of the highway for different uses, pavements for pedestrians, special tracks for cyclists, and so on. Has thought been given to providing separate tracks for public service vehicles along new or improved roads?
I suggest that it could fairly readily be done on new constructions and it could, perhaps, be extended to the old roads when they are improved. If this were done, the public service vehicle would have a clear run like a train and would be able to keep to its schedules. In this way bus travel would become a much more attractive proposition for commuters in and out of London and pressure on the railways, both above and below ground, would be relieved. If we are to build new roads in any case, it might well be possible to incorporate some such scheme at the construction stage at a lower cost than in any other way. But I am not an expert. I do not know whether


this is feasible. What I want the Minister to do is to assure me that proposals of this sort are being studied. I do not believe that the problems of London commuters will be overcome by just one solution. There must be a series of solutions added together in an endeavour to make life slightly easier for these people who at present have such a very difficult time.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Norman Dodds: There is a saying that it is an ill wind which blows no one any good. A consequence of the go-slow by the drivers over the last fortnight is that it has forced this House to take stock of a situation which has been bedevilling the whole area for over 30 years. I agree with the hon. Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Atkins) that there are certain comments which one might want to make about the present situation, but there is a danger that if they were made, even with the best will in the world, it would be much more difficult to solve the problem. Therefore, we must be careful about what we say.
The hon. Member for Merton and Morden suggested that it might be helpful if after a certain time the number of routes to and from London were changed. This seems an excellent suggestion, and there might well be roads on which it would be of great value. I look forward to the answer which is given to the hon. Gentleman. In the last day or two, however, I have been travelling from Dartford during the busy period. I do not find much difference in conditions either into or out of London. Commuters are trying to get out and lorries and other vehicles are trying to get in. The trouble is the terribly antiquated road system along the Thames.
There can be no doubt that when this go-slow is over, which we all hope will be soon, the situation of commuters will still be scandalous. Judging from some of the planning which is going on, it looks as if it will get very much worse. Let me give two examples. Along the river from Woolwich to Erith it is proposed to build houses for tens of thousands of people on the marshes. We are deeply concerned about this and we cannot get any answers to our questions

Since people cannot get on the trains, and since it is obvious that only a small percentage of those affected by the planning will get jobs in the locality, tens of thousands of extra people must be thrown on to the roads unless someone gets to grips with the problem soon. Plans for the houses are already going forward.
Approval has been given for the building of a big village at Hartley. Commuters in that area are scandalised because no proposals have been made about providing extra transport. Of course we must have houses, but provision for them must be made in conjunction with the facilities available. What is the good of living there if one cannot travel to and from the area?
I deplore, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has deplored, the fact that the drivers have decided to continue the go-slow after they have forcibly brought their complaints and claim for bonus money not only to Parliament but to the notice of the nation. I went to Dartford from the North 30 years ago. As a Northerner, I was astounded at what people in the South would put up with in travelling to and from work. I was astonished that they could be so docile. I found when working in London that I lost a great deal of energy in travelling to and from work, not only in winter, when I was held up by fog, but during the summer because the ventilation was absolutely terrible and I felt like a wet rag.
I would say that the commuters are a lot to blame themselves. They have put up with intolerable travelling conditions for far too long. I warn the Minister of Transport and those who succeed him that I believe that this situation is coming to an end. I see in my area a new spirit among commuters who will, in future, make sure that their claims are very near the top of the list. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport will speak to the Chairman of the Railways Board about this matter. There is a great need for better public relations between commuters and the travelling authorities so that people know what plans they have in mind. People will put up with many things if they know not only that their point of view is understood but that everything humanly possible is being done about it.
I hope that in the next few months the Railways Board or some other organisation will take it upon itself to offer its services to enable visits to be made to various commuting areas for the purpose not only of telling commuters what it is proposed to do but of inviting them to advance their ideas about what they would like done. Some splendid ideas are put forward if we want to build a cathedral. People are invited to put forward their ideas and prizes are awarded. As I have indicated, there is a rebellious spirit among many people and there must be better public relations to ensure that proposals are discussed fully and frankly with the people who are affected by them.
Commuters who used to enjoy travelling by train have found that, as a result of staggered office hours, all the trains are packed, or employers have altered working hours in the belief that it might make travelling easier. But there is now no easy time for travelling. Many commuters have been forced to use the roads. They are between the devil and the deep blue sea. There is an impossible situation on the railways. Traffic on the roads from Dartford, Gravesend and Erith to London is paralysed because we still use Tower Bridge. Tower Bridge must cost this nation a fortune because of the traffic congestion which it causes. This wonderful bridge which so many visitors come to see is an absolute nightmare for commuters on my side of the river, whether they travel by rail or road.
I hope, therefore, that from present experiences there will be a determination by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to have talks with the Railways Board and with everyone else concerned, including the Minister of Housing and Local Government and those who are responsible for the roads. As my right hon. Friend knows, the four Labour Members who met him a week ago are waiting to get this over so that we will be able to know what is to be done about something which has lasted for much too long. In our own constituencies we are to have meetings with the commuters to get their ideas. Unless somebody moves and get some answers there will be some rough questioning in the House of Commons in the not too distant future.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace) said, we

who live by the river would like to know why the Thames cannot be used more than it is. In addition, there has been talk for years about a monorail. It is said that it costs a lot of money, but it costs a lot, not only in health but in plain economics, not to have these things. The economic situation for employers is desperate because of hold-ups on the roads. If we cannot have an underground railway, let us have some Hovercraft. At least let us have some ideas.
It is no use saying that none of these things is good enough. I do not have any ideas—it is not my job to get them—but if invitations for ideas were issued and if there were then genuine consultations, I am sure that if I am not capable enough of giving the ideas many of my constituents are.
I ask that before it is too late, before we start throwing too many bricks at each other—we are all in this—we should try to work together non-politically for the purpose of getting a solution for a problem which is a nightmare to so many people and which is a drag upon the nation in getting out of the economic doldrums.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: We seem in this debate to have concentrated on two things. One, to follow the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds), is the adaptation of our transport system to the long-term needs of the population in the South-East and the other is the immediate issues which have been posed by this dispute on the Southern Region of British Rail. I agree very much with what the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford has said about the long-term needs of the area. We have got to explore all these possibilities and the Minister of Transport must evolve a transport system which will cater for the future population growtth in constituencies such as his own.
The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford has mentioned the Erith Marshes development, which, I believe, will house 25,000 people over the next few years.

Mr. Dodds: It will be more than that.

Mr. Lubbock: In my constituency we have the redevelopment of St. Mary Cray, several hundred houses going up on Crofton Heath, a further large estate


in the village of Farningham and the new town map for Biggin Hill involves, I believe, an additional population in that area of something like 12,000.
The population of my constituency has gone up since the war from about 36,000 in 1946 to the present day level of 82,000—it has more than doubled during this period—and the substantial number of people who have come to live in my constituency since the war have added to the traffic on British Rail. This applies throughout the whole of the southeastern division of British Rail and to a lesser extent on the other divisions serving London.
I very much agree with the hon. Member that we have to explore the other possibilities such as he has mentioned, including the use of the river. Here is an idea of great imagination. We would like to see the British invention of the hovercraft applied to a greater extent than it has been so far in this country. It has been a disappointment to some of us who are interested in technology to notice that the first order for the new 150-ton Westland Hovercraft has been placed by a Swedish firm and not by a British company. Surely, the economics of these new forms of transport are such that they could be considered in the problem of commuting.
We have this free highway of the Thames running through the centre of the Metropolis. According to my observations, it is hardly used. Even for freight, I am told that the large volume of coke and fuel traffic that used to go by lighter is now being transferred to the roads and adding to the congestion.
As to the more limited issue of the dispute on the Southern Region of British Rail, I hope that we will avoid recrimination and saying things in this dispute which are likely to worsen the already very bad situation. I do not like saying this, but the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) disappointed me in his speech this afternoon, because he is the only one in the whole dispute who has at least appeared to try to make a political issue out of this. It was not worthy of the right hon. Gentleman or up to his usual standard. It is much better that we should consider the dispute in a rational and logical way if we are to arrive at a solution.
Let us by all means ventilate the grievances of our constituents. I agree with everything that was said by the right hon. Lady the Member Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) on this subject. Her constituency is served by the same line as my own. I agree with the right hon. Lady that the word "inconvenience" which has been used concerning the situation that the commuters face is indeed a masterpiece of understatement and that we should speak of the sufferings of our constituents in the present situation.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Has not the Liberal Party—I speak not personally but of the party as a whole—given thought to the real issue here, which is not even the misery to the commuters but whether those in the public services of the country—the railways, electricity and so on—do not owe a higher duty than those not in the public service with regard to the withdrawal of labour—I always understood that the Liberal Party really thought about that—and as to whether some sanction, under the criminal law or otherwise, should be applied to those who withdraw their labour from the public service? Has not the Liberal Party given thought to this?

Mr. Gunter: Does not the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) recollect that for 13 years the Conservative Party made sure that the members of the public services were the lowest paid?

Mr. Lubbock: When the hon. Member's party was in power for 13 years, it did not dare to make such an extravagant proposal as that during the whole time it was in office. I hope that that will not become the official policy of the Conservative Party. What the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) has said in his intervention illustrates the dangers of this dispute. I intend to discuss the topic which the hon. Member has raised, but I prefer to deal with it in the order in which I have planned to make my speech.
The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West was strongly critical of both the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Transport, but he did not produce any constructive idea about what should be done, not only to


solve the dispute but to prevent its recurrence. It did not seem to me that the right hon. Gentleman had any appreciation of the difficulties involved.
What we have to understand is that, as the Minister said to the House, any action that he may take must not appear to condone the action of unofficial strikers or to weaken the official negotiating machinery between British Rail management and the unions. This creates great difficulties in the way of his intervening in the dispute, although, as the right hon. Gentleman reminded us, on the last occasion when we had a go-slow on the Southern Region last November he at least went as far as to bring the parties together in the offices of the Ministry of Labour under his auspices, and on that occasion he was successful in bringing a temporary end to the dispute. This indicates that it would be a good idea for him to contemplate any action, however unorthodox it might be, which might prevent the dispute dragging on, rather than to play it entirely according to the book and allow the lives of millions of people who have no part in the dispute to suffer. I certainly would not presume to say what sort of action that would be and it would be unwise to discuss it during this debate.
There is an analogy here, after all, with the action which was taken by the Prime Minister in the case of Vietnam. Some people criticised him for sending on a visit to Hanoi the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. They criticised that on the grounds that this was unorthodox. The Prime Minister's answer to that was that any action, however unorthodox, he could take to bring about a settlement of the dispute in Vietnam must be taken. Although this situation is, of course, not as urgent as that, still, in the lives of many people, it is important that the Minister should take any action, however unorthodox, which is open to him, and I would ask him to consider that analogy, because unless we can find machinery to deal with this case, and others like it, whole sections of the public who are perfectly innocent and who take no part whatever in the disputes will be made to suffer, and there will be voices, such as that of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet, raised in favour of more drastic and authoritarian solutions. There are people such as Lord Thomson of Fleet, for whom

I have the very greatest respect, who would like to see all unofficial strikes and unofficial industrial action declared illegal because they can see no other way of dealing with what we must recognise is a cancer eating away at the nation's prosperity. It is up to the Minister of Labour—I am directing my remarks particularly to him—to demonstrate that there are other ways in a free society of bringing about industrial harmony without limiting the ultimate rights of organised labour.
I would make three suggestions to the Minister of Labour. They have been put to me by the Orpington and District Railway Passengers' Association, which held a meeting in Orpington last night. There were present Mr. Huskisson, the manager of the South-Eastern Region, Mr. Pullen, London organiser of A.S.L.E.F., and Mr. Tinsley. My constituents had the chance to put their views to both sides in the dispute. I should just like to say, in case anyone read the account of this meeting published in the Daily Mail this morning, that that account was misleading and, I think, grossly inflammatory, when it spoke of certain drivers leaving the meeting and of critical remarks which they made when they were outside. Those drivers were not from Orpington. Mr. Pullen did not leave, nor did Mr. Tinsley. Personally, I think the chairman was quite correct in not allowing those drivers to put questions to Mr. Huskisson, because the purpose of the meeting was to enable commuters to put their views to both the management and the trade union side and not to allow a fracas to develop between Mr. Huskisson and those representing the unofficial and official sides of the workers at the meeting.
The first suggestion which they made was that they should get away from nationally negotiated wage agreements on British Rail and that the British Railways Board and A.S.L.E.F. should be encouraged to negotiate a bonus for the south-eastern division drivers, based on their own improvements in productivity and not on other factors which are irrelevant in the division. This, I know, is not fully acceptable to either side. I should be grateful if the Minister would be good enough to listen to this.

Mr. Gunter: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I was consulting.

Mr. Lubbock: I am talking of the idea of regionally negotiated bonuses for the drivers on British Rail, and I was just saying that I know that this is not fully acceptable either to the British Railways Board or to the representatives of the drivers, but I should like to point out that many of the improvements in productivity which the British Railways Board would like to see are already effected in the south-eastern division, and many others which have not been mentioned. Over the last few years we have introduced 10-car trains instead of the six or eight which are still prevalent in other divisions. In the eastern division I think they have six-car trains. The productivity, therefore, of drivers in my division is over half as much again what it is in the eastern division. I should also like to point out that since the new timetable was introduced the number of trains has gone up in the rush hour from 45 to 54, an extra nine, without any change in the number of drivers. So, there again, their productivity has increased quite substantially. One thing which the Board has mentioned continuously is single manning. We have in the south-eastern division almost entirely single manning.
So when criticism is made of the unofficial strikers—and I join in what has been said on that: I think it is deplorable; however serious the grievances of the drivers are, they should not take this way out—I am disappointed that no one in the debate so far has recognised that these drivers have something to be upset about, and I hope that that will be recognised by those hon. Gentlemen who have criticised the drivers for their unofficial action.

Mr. Dodds: I said in my speech that I deplored the continuance of the strike after the drivers had forcefully brought their claims before the nation and the Board.

Mr. Lubbock: I fully accept that, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
I wanted to point out to the Minister that precedents exist for local bonus agreements. I am informed, for example, that the drivers in Birmingham, or some of them at least, have a local bonus, and in Tonbridge the staff who are

employed on goods handling had a local bonus as well.

Mr. Charles Mapp: May I, as an ex-railwayman, or a retired railwayman, point out to the hon. Member that bonus schemes on terminals and various other operations are 30 or 40 years old? There is nothing new in this at all.

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman is supporting me in my case. As he knows, in the present dispute all we have heard about are nationally-negotiated bonus agreements for drivers, covering the whole of the country, and as far as I know it has not been suggested yet, except by drivers in the south-eastern division, that there should be local variations of these when they claim, as I have shown they can claim, that they are entitled to a bonus because they have already made advances in productivity sought in other regions.

Mr. John Wells: As to the increase in productivity about which the hon. Gentleman is talking—10-car trains in the Southern Region, and only six-car trains in the Eastern Region—is he really advocating that in the Eastern Region where there are fewer people the trains should bump along with some empty cars?

Mr. Lubbock: No. I am not advocating that at all. What I was saying, as the hon. Gentleman would have known had he been listening to me, was that the drivers in the south-eastern division had accepted an increase in the number of cars, and I think they are entitled to some recognition of that in their wage packets. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity of intervening later, and if I go on speaking too long I am sure I shall upset some hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Charles Doughty: And on this side.

Mr. Lubbock: I understand that up to 1963 the N.U.R. was willing to encourage local productivity agreements, but that A.S.L.E.F. was against them in principle. I understand that it no longer is against them in principle, and therefore I think that they might at least be explored.
Another suggestion put forward at the meeting was much more far-reaching and much more a Ministry matter, perhaps, than wages, and it was that there should be a public inquiry into the South-Eastern Region to cover management, operations, economics, including investment decisions, and staff relations. My constituents believe that this go-slow is merely a surface manifestation of much more deep-rooted troubles, and I think that it is not without significance that the go-slow has been much more successful in the south-eastern division than in the other two sectors of the Southern Region.
Operating problems in this division have been much the greatest because it has had the largest increases in passenger traffic. The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford will, I know, agree with me on this. This, in turn, has stemmed from the lack of Government policy on regional planning and acceptance of the population drift to which many hon. Members have referred during the debate. It has been aggravated by British Rail policy of electrification on the Kent coast lines which has not been accompanied by any improvements in the bottlenecks near London termini. This is why I say that the situation is worse in this region than in any other and why it is so bad that it warrants the inquiry which my constituents are demanding.
There is a precedent for the Minister to have such an inquiry, in that the Minister of Aviation in the last Government commissioned a firm of management consultants to carry out a survey into certain aspects of the management of B.O.A.C., but on this occasion I should like the findings of the survey to be published because I think that there is great public anxiety about it and we are entitled to know the answers.
This does not attempt to deal with the national problems, and the Minister may feel that consultants ought to have wider terms of reference than those which I have suggested, and that they should look at the rule book. As the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South-West pointed out, in a weekend speech, the Prime Minister said that we should change the rules if they operated to the detriment of economic prosperity.

I am told that this rule book has been in existence since 1931. I do not know whether that is correct, but if it is, then it is high time that we altered it.

Mr. Archie Manuel: A number of loose statements are being made. The rule book may have been in existence since 1931, but it is constantly being amended. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate, as I hope the Committee will, that most of these rules deal with safety precautions. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the bonus payments to which reference is being made for enginemen are linked to mileage payments? They depend on the mileage operated each day.

Mr. Lubbock: These are some of the issues which I suggest ought to be looked at by consultants. The whole question of the wage structure of British Rail, which many hon. Members have criticised, appears to be a matter for investigation, but this problem has arisen because some persons are able to have incentive schemes. The character of their work is conducive to measurement, but other people are not able to have such schemes. This has upset the whole wage structure of British Rail over a period of years, so that now we have people who are less skilled earning more money than drivers. This is one of the bases of the grievances, but it is not limited to the drivers. I am told by friends of mine on the railways that many other grades are in a similar position. It may, therefore, be a good thing not only to accept this demand being made by my constituents for an inquiry into the South-Eastern Region but to ask consultants to look into the wage structure of British Rail as a whole.
The commuter is not usually informed of the issues involved but he knows that last November there were serious delays, and that following the intervention of the Minister of Labour the problem was solved temporarily. It was obvious to him then that unless British Rail and A.S.L.E.F. could come to an agreement quickly there would be a repetition of the trouble. From what the Minister said this afternoon—although he dressed this up a little in the language that he used—it would appear that no progress whatesoever was made from the middle of November, when a temporary settlement was arrived at, until July, when


the trouble recurred. This is a shocking indictment of British Rail for its dilatoriness in settling what appears to the average commuter to be a relatively simple issue. It also appears from what the Minister said this afternoon that if this offer which it is now talking about of a three guinea bonus in return for a productivity agreement had been made in November none of this trouble would have happened. It would all have been settled, and services would have been operating normally today.

Mr. Gunter: For the sake of the record, perhaps I might point out that the three guinea figure which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned has never been the subject of negotiation. This is the figure arrived at by the unofficial strikers.

Mr. Lubbock: Perhaps I went too far in the gloss that I put on the Minister's speech, but, as I understand it, the chance of arriving at a settlement in which the bonus payment was linked to productivity was deliberately thrown away by British Rail's dilatoriness, and the closer we came to the A.S.L.E.F. conference in June the more remote became the chance of arriving at a settlement. We now know that the A.S.L.E.F. conference is being reconvened on 10th August. I appreciate the reasons for that, as explained by the Minister this afternoon, but, looking at it from the commuters' point of view, it appears that neither British Rail nor the A.S.L.E.F. appear to appreciate the need to act urgently.
It is nearly two years since the claim was first produced, and yet we are no nearer a settlement. I think that the passengers have been amazingly long-suffering in putting up with the disruption of their working lives, not only for several weeks in July but last November as well, and on many occasions before that, due not to the dispute but to fog, ice and snow, to which one hon. Gentleman referred. All these things are piling up, and I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that my constituents are not going to put with this state of affairs for much longer. I appeal to him to do everything possible to arrive at a settlement of the dispute, and to carry out the suggestions that I have made for a more long-term overhaul of British Rail.

6.46 p.m.

Mr. R. W. Brown: I should like to dispel the view that the commuter problem is peculiar to London and Greater London. It is not. It is a worldwide problem. One hon. Gentleman talked about tidal waves in and out of the city. One finds the same sort of thing in Philadelphia. There are 21 or 22 entries to the city, and they allocate 11 or 12 coming in in the morning and 11 or 12 going out in the evening, but one still gets traffic jams. Every major city in the world suffers from this problem, and I should like the Committee to get this problem into its proper perspective. As I have said, it is not peculiar to us. I am not arguing that we should be satisfied because it is a universal problem, but I think that we ought to get it into its proper perspective.
The right hon. Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) talked about high fares. They were the result of the policy of the Government of the day. It was Conservative policy that British Railways should be financially viable. They had to put their financial house in order, with the result that fares were increased.
That state of affairs was brought about by the uneconomic planning of the whole transport system. It is absurd that the only time our public transport system is used to the full, and used economically, is between 7.30 and 9.30 a.m. and 4.30 and 6.30 p.m. For the remainder of the day the capital assets are left completely idle. They do not earn a penny. It is not possible to take people on and put them off to run the services in the morning and in the evening. They have to be employed all the time to cater for those peak periods. The overheads are the same throughout the day. It must follow, therefore, that British Railways will always be financially embarrassed, and they try to help this situation by raising fares to recover some of the money. It is the policy adopted by the Government of the day which determines the fares charged by the railway, and it is therefore no use putting forward this argument about high fares in an effort to exert pressure on railwaymen who are being difficult.
It does not lie in the mouths of hon. Gentlemen opposite to tell my right hon.


Friend what he ought to do about the commuter problem. I led a number of deputations to the previous Minister to point out the difficulties of commuting to London every day, and dozens of reports have been submitted on this topic. The hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Chataway) has seen many of these reports, and some of his friends from Lewisham were with me on the deputations which, since 1956, have been pressing for something to be done.
As my hon. Friend said, my colleagues in that authority have been doing it year after year. We held our last meeting a year ago, when we thought at long last we had seen the end of a series of reports all highlighting the problems of the South-East and all telling the Government of the day what ought to be done. However, no one has done anything about it. Last year, we got a tentative promise that after the Victoria Line was completed a look would be taken at the South-East, and we thought that we were at last going to get the problems of the commuter settled to some extent. It is interesting to recall that when the cost of the job was first estimated in 1948 it was going to cost £1 million from the Elephant and Castle to Camberwell Green. Last year, it was costed again and found to be £10 million.
It is quite wrong of hon. Members opposite to try to create an atmosphere where it is alleged that the problem has just arrived or that it is tied up with the action that the railwaymen are taking today. It is quite unfair and not in accordance with the information that many hon. Members have.
The one issue from which everyone has sheered away is that there is an answer to the problem, and why everyone is running away from it, I do not know. The former Minister of Transport ran away from it regularly. Every report issued on the problems of commuting comes back to staggered hours. It is said that if only people's hours of work could be staggered the whole problem could be solved, and any Government of the day could do it by bringing in controls to enforce staggered hours. But no Government for the last 13 years has wanted to do it, because politically it is a dead duck.
They could have taken another step which would have solved the problem. Quite clearly, the period of petrol rationing was the only time that the road passenger transpore services ran properly. If the number of private cars coming into the centres of towns is reduced drastically the buses will run regularly, and satisfy all commuters. The solution is to keep out private transport. Any Government could have done that and brought in controls forcing people with cars to keep out of town centres. Ring roads round the outside of London have been created to force industrial traffic to stay outside. The last Government knew that it was a possibility, but they would not do it because they knew that politically it was dead. It is no good standing up in the House making high falutin' suggestions of what might be done. There was every possibility of solving the problem years ago.
The previous Administration not only argued that financially they were not prepared to help the South-East. They went further. The answer we got from the Minister of Transport of the day was that the figures provided by his inspectors and by the Transport Users Consultative Committee was that the services in the South-East were adequate. Trains were running through such stations as Lewisham and Greenwich which were packed in the first four carriages and empty in the rear four, because everyone wanted to get out first at Charing Cross or Cannon Street. That was the argument that the right hon. Gentleman used against conceding our case. That is why I say, with great respect to the hon. Gentleman opposite, that it does not do to start complaining today that the whole problem of commuter troubles in the South-East arises because the railwaymen are taking unofficial action.
I want to turn now to the subject of the go-slow. I have never quite understood what that means. However, I do understand the expression "working to rule". We have reached the ridiculous situation where a set of rules has been laid down and then when someone works to them it is argued that they are saboteurs and are doing something which hon. Members opposite want to take sanctions against by law. They want to make such action criminal. How silly can one get?
I have heard enough today of strictures on the railwaymen. I support my right hon. Friend when he says that the action that they are taking is wrong. What I want to address myself to is the sniping comments that have been made about the go-slow and the work-to-rule.
I have a case in my constituency where a man worked as a guard for British Railways for eight years. He was a married man with five children. Recently, when carrying out his duties, he was killed. An inquiry was held, as it always is, to determine the cause of the accident. After eight years on the railway, having been taught to work to the rules of the railway, my constituent was found, posthumously, to have contributed to his death by his own negligence, having failed to work to the rules. All that man had done was what is the custom and practice in order to expedite railway working and get trains out of the marshalling yards quickly. I have had to peruse the report of the inquiry in order to bring the case to the authorities, and there were two or three others of the staff whose attention was drawn to the fact that they were habitually not working to the rules.

Mr. Doughty: Assuming that the deceased man was a member of his appropriate railway union, did the union support the widow's claim in common law?

Mr. Brown: Indeed they did, and they have been very helpful in advising me of their attitude to the case. That does not alter the fact that by law, because he was negligent, that woman and her five children do not get a penny piece. I am raising it with my right hon. Friend to see if he can possibly help my constituent and her five children to get some compensation from the railways as a result of her husband's death.

Mr. Doughty: What was the result of the action which the widow took with the assistance of the union?

Mr. Brown: As I have tried to explain to the hon. Gentleman, it was turned down. She has received no compensation because her late husband was negligent, having contributed to his own death by not working to the rules. It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head, the man's widow and children and unable

to get any money. It is a very serious case for me, but I do not want to impose on the Committee my own constituency problems. What I want to establish is that here is a case of someone who did not work to the rules, and what I am trying to establish as a general case is that many railwaymen spend their days desperately trying to keep the railways running by deliberately flouting the rules, and every commuter says, happily, "We are grateful to you. You are good fellows. You are getting us there on time."
I do not know if the hon. Gentleman knows what the duties of a guard are. He is responsible for seeing that all doors are securely shut. If he starts a train and a door flies open which hits someone he is the man who will be censured for failing to carry out the rule. When one talks about working to rule, the whole system is run on rules, but it is only when railwaymen fail to work to those rules that the service operates more speedily than otherwise it would do. Therefore, I hope that we can get away from the strictures and the idea that someone who works to rules laid down by the management is in some way a criminal.
One quite understands the problems of negotiating bonus schemes in conditions of this type. One might question whether a bonus scheme is the right method. Considering the infinite variety of constraints outside its control, how can the productivity of a train crew be measured? A man can be paid for his productivity only when he has complete control of his ability to produce more, but train men depend on the platform staff, on the passengers, on the signalmen, on whether the track is being repaired and a vast number of other factors.
There are bound to be problems in trying to produce a bonus scheme for this type of worker, because he wants to know that he will justly get what he believes that he has earned. The consultants of British Railways have been discussing this problem. One of the views of the railway unions is that not only train staff but signalling and other staffs should join a group scheme, because all staffs contribute to the total productivity of on-time starting and on-time arrival.

Mr. Lubbock: What I said was that if the consultants in the Ministry accepted my suggestion they would look at the


whole wage structure of British Rail and not just the wage structure of the drivers

Mr. Brown: There may be some merit in that. I know from personal experience that there have been many such reviews. There were reviews into manpower arrangements under Dr. Beeching. But there are certain problems in the railways which are not always apparent in other forms of industry.
I have tried to highlight the factors. The problem is serious and there is no doubt that the transport situation needs overhaul. It takes my constituents as long to go about half a mile as it takes to go from Orpington to Charing Cross. It takes as long as 40 minutes to go from Finsbury Square to the Bank and that is a matter of only a few hundred yards. It is not only the railways, but all forms of traffic in the towns which have these problems. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is seized of the importance of considering the whole problem of transport, and I am sure that after this debate at least he will be able to look at his plans afresh and bring some hope to the people of London.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. Charles Doughty: I should like to ask the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. R. W. Brown) to send me the facts and the name of the case to which he referred and the date on which it was tried in the High Court, because I would like to inquire into it. I have certain suspicions about it.
He said that it was all right to work to rule because the rules were laid down. I can tell him what working to rule in these circumstances means. It means turning up to do the job and then not doing it properly. We can do it in the House of Commons if we want, as long as we keep within the rules of procedure. I have been fortunate enough to catch your eye, Dr. King, and I am therefore now entitled to speak until 10 o'clock. I shall keep within the procedure and I shall work to rule, but I should not be thought to be doing my job properly, and I should not expect any hon. Member to give approval to my conduct. In fact, I propose to be reasonably short.
I do not wish to say anything more about this dispute which would exacerbate what is undoubtedly a difficult situa-

tion. Many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have asked why British Railways have not acted more quickly. I and my late father before me have been concerned in many negotiations, and it is my view that to try to rush too much is to harden opposition until each side is forced to take up an uncompromising position so that the last situation is worse than the first. It is very often the case that moving a little more slowly is the best way to work to the final conclusion.
It is important that the members of the union should have the final position explained to them, should understand it and should support their own elected leaders. It is because they have not done that that the railwaymen have incurred the undoubted criticism of the travelling public. I say no more than that, because I do not wish to say a word to criticise anybody concerned in this matter, but I hope that a final conclusion will be reached in the near future.
I represent a constituency which is concerned in this matter, although not so much as the Kent constituencies. However, as the whole of the Southern Region of British Railways, from Kent, Surrey, or Sussex, meets up as it approaches inner London, any hold-up or disarrangement of any part is infectious throughout the system and my constituents are therefore concerned, perhaps indirectly, with the results of the last few weeks.
The important part of the matter is that it is the final straw which has broken the camel's back. It is the final straw which has caused the commuting public, as it is called, to say, "We have had enough; we have been pushed around for too long". They have suffered very much over a great many years.
What do we mean by "commuting public"? We mean those who come from their houses outside London to the London termini and then travel on by public transport to their places of work. Two hon. Members have already mentioned that it is unfortunate that hours of work are not staggered more than they are. I have been told by British Railways that they are much less staggered than they were before the war. Everyone seems to come in with more of a rush than before the war. With that situation the railways cannot cope and they must


rely to a great extent on the co-operation of the travelling public.
The position has been deteriorating over many years. The chief reason is that there has been a movement from the centre of London to outlying areas, sometimes 60 or 70 miles away, with people travelling backwards and forwards every day. That is the ordinary, normal and natural way of things. It is no good talking about restricting development. Even in Tudor times that was discussed when it was complained that London was becoming too big.
If it is a fact that office building has been reduced, it has been reduced around the Home Counties as well. I will not pursue that matter which can be discussed on a different occasion and which I would be out of order to try to discuss now, anyway.
There is this vast increase in the population in outlying areas travelling to London, because that is where it works and where it must work because the offices and businesses have to be near the banks and insurance companies and solicitors and so on, and so they must be in the same sort of area. One asks whether the commuting services, the public services, have kept up with the changed demand and the changed position of the demand, and the answer is emphatically no.
The lines are pre-war. The rolling stock is virtually all pre-war and certainly of a pre-war model, and in some cases is pre-First World War. The only substantial change since before the First War has been electrification. I have omitted one of the most important matters, which is the vast increase in the cost of season tickets for this travel. This is a cost which has to be paid, for people have to travel and they have to have a ticket before they can travel. Therefore, they are at the complete mercy of British Rail. One hon. Member talked about making the employer pay the fair. I can deal with that very shortly, particularly on behalf of those in the outlying parts. They would, of course, have more difficulty in obtaining employment than those near their work, because the employer would not have to reimburse them for their fare.
There is a more sensible suggestion. These are necessary expenses incurred

for the purposes of their work. They do not travel for pleasure. They do not get pleasure out of it. If they were commercial travellers and had to travel to take their goods to another firm, it would be part of their reasonable expenses. Why should not all or part of a commuter's travelling expenses also be properly charged for tax purposes as part of his reasonable expenses? I throw that suggestion out, I think it is quite a helpful one, which will assist in halting these vastly increased expenses, which go up every year. I may be told that one cannot increase—

Mr. R. W. Brown: Would the hon. Member indicate what he believes the situation is for the people who are of such an income level that they do not pay tax but who live outside London? There are a vast number of those as well.

Mr. Doughty: Most of those who live there are amongst those who pay tax and are aware of the level at which they pay tax.
I would make a suggestion—which could be criticised right away—about the people who have these necessary expenses. If we have reasonable expenses, properly incurred, we are all entitled to charge them for tax purposes. These travelling expenses, or a proportion of them, ought to be included.
I am told that we cannot increase lines because there is no space to build them. The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) suggested that a monorail might be put over the lines. Monorails are extremely quiet, efficient and fast, and they carry large numbers of people though not, of course, compared with those carried by a train. They are expensive to erect, but on very busy routes the expense would be covered. They could not be built on routes which are less patronised because the expense would be prohibitive.
The failure to modernise and cope with the vast increase in population must be considered in relation to the fact that the stations—except in a very few cases where platforms are being lengthened—are exactly as they were when I was born. That is many years ago now, and next year it will be one year more. They are worse today, because many of them have two entrances, one on each side.


One is often closed, and more passengers want to use it in the commuting hours. They find it closed on grounds of economy, but it is the passengers who have to suffer. When they arrive at stations, they find that they are as they were in those beautiful Victorian pictures of the stations immediately after they were built.
Take Victoria in the morning. Hundreds of thousands of people line up in all weathers. It may be raining or very hot, and people still have to wait to get on to a bus. Cannot that station be redesigned? The large stations of London occupy enormous acreages and should be redesigned. The only station which I can think of where the space is used for proper purposes is Baker Street. A large block of flats was built there before the war, which probably meant a good revenue for the Railways Board. The whole station was rebuilt. We want an increased number of platforms, perhaps on two levels above flats and offices—if that last word does not offend the other side of the Committee—stations would benefit from large rents, which would pav for the cost of transforming them and making proper interchange places, whether with buses or with underground trains.
I am glad that the new Victoria Line has been begun. This was long overdue. I hope that it will be completed as soon as possible. We want more underground lines in London. The only way in which we can cater for large numbers of people is by electric trains, whether they be on the surface or underground. Buses cannot do it, even if they had the whole road to themselves. We cannot keep private cars out of London. I would not advocate that for a moment, though I would—this is another subject—advocate not using the streets for car parks.
Why should not trains be air conditioned? This is done in other countries with far smaller populations than ours. It would make travelling far more tolerable if when one opened a window one did not get a lot of air. There is a good deal of modernising and redesigning to be done by those who are responsible for providing these services. The trains travel on lines which are not welded. Modern line is continuous and provides much smoother travel. This is a matter which should be considered. It

is no good saying, "We get the customers. They have to use the trains. They have to buy the season tickets whatever we charge." That is no answer. If a public service is being provided, the customer should be considered even more than in the case of the provision of a private service, which faces competition.
I can promise the Minister of Transport—I hope that this goes for most of the "commuter" members in the House—the fullest co-operation in letting him know what the travelling public require. If he will tell us what the plans are for the future I promise him—I think that I can speak for many other hon. Members on this side of the House—that we will let our constituents know what is going on. At the moment, they are dissatisfied—and with reason. They are extremely disappointed at the service they are getting and they are very angry about the fares they have to pay.
This little matter of the work-to-rule is the last straw which has brought matters to boiling point. This has brought the whole question of commuter travel before the House. The Opposition is today using one of its Supply Days so that the matter can be fully ventilated and, I hope, brought to the attention of the Minister, of whatever party he may be. I hope that commuters in future will be able to have a better service, to arrive fresher and better at their work and in the same spirit when they return home in the evenings.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Charles Mapp: The debate this afternoon has been taking a strange guise. When I listened to the speech of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) from the Front Bench opposite, I was also watching the faces of hon. Members on the back benches. I saw a certain amount of amazement in their faces. Later, when the Minister got down to the real problem, not of politics but of human relations, it was quite clear that the motive behind today's debate was not the subject of industrial relations at all. With a railway background behind me—I declare that interest immediately—I want to look at the contribution of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West.
I feel that the debate today is politically timed. No one has said so. It has a reference to what is happening in Brighton. The hopes were, probably, that this would be front page and six o'clock news in Brighton unless something else had taken it off this evening. It has been a cynical electoral use by a political party of an industrial difficulty. The speech of the right hon. Member was cynical in many ways. What is more, as one who spent his life on the railways, not least involved in negotiating on both sides of the table for and in the railways, I would say that the right hon. Member's speech will find its reflections in the lower and bottom level negotiations on both sides of the table.
If it was his intention and purpose to add an air of acidity to that of frustration on both sides of the table, he may have achieved it. In alignment with so many railwaymen I know of all grades, I would say that the speech of the Minister this afternoon was in total contrast to the speech of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. I could not help thinking that his speech was vicious in background, venomous in content and vitriolic in delivery. My mind went back to the record of economic depresession suffered by the railways in recent years, caused mainly by political events.
I must remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that the railways were largely viable up to 1953. The industry was faced with technical as well as other problems even at that time, but the Conservative Party, since that date, has made political decisions of an immense character which, from the economic point of view, had disastrous effects on the railways.
If there is a "commuters' group" on the benches opposite, as we have been informed there is, why did the members of that group not bring their influence to bear on the former Administration in the formulation of their transport policies? The last General Election took place without there being any sort of transport policy formulated by the party opposite. It still does not have one.
I said that industrial relations at all levels would not be helped in the transport industry by the remarks of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South- 
West. It will make negotiating more difficult because on both sides of the industry—at all levels—we find a bad atmosphere, with paralysis on one side and frustration on the other.
I do not know how many hon. Gentlemen opposite have worked in a trade or industry which seems to be consistently in economic difficulties and facing an economically bleak future. That has been my experience of this industry since 1919. I began on the railways at what had been the first railway station to be opened in Britain. Apart from the difficulties which the industry has faced—the rigid track on railways and the internal combustion engine in the road transport industry,—it has also faced political blows which, in recent years, have been extremely severe.
Is it any wonder that the railwaymen are frustrated? Hon. Gentlemen opposite have said that commuters have reached the end of the road, so to speak. That may be so, but would they not also agree that the railwaymen had long since reached the end of the road? It is only when they take unorthodox action of this kind that one can think of the end of the road from the workers' point of view. I will not say that I disapprove of the action they are taking. I do not like it, but I understand the motives which have brought them to it. As one in the industry who has tried to coax them into other ways, I am bound to understand the human motives underlying the action they have taken.
Today's debate has, as I have explained, been timed for a political purpose. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West spoke this afternoon in the midst of a difficult industrial situation. He must have known that his remarks would not be helpful, to say the least. In the right hon. Gentleman's speech last night he propagated a philosophy which, I hope, is isolated to him. Indeed, in that speech he argued the case that in a selfish society people should take selfish actions to preserve their economic status.
If that is a right interpretation of his argument, and I think it is—although the right hon. Gentleman may not like my using the word "selfish" but that is, nevertheless, the criterion he adopted—then will he tell me what is wrong with


the action the railwaymen are now taking and what is wrong with a man who decides to go on strike if he believes that his labour can, in an existing difficult situation, command higher remuneration? Is it that the right hon. Gentleman considers that this kind of jungle action is all right in the world of commerce and the money market but is all wrong in the labour market? I hope that we will move into a more orderly way of looking at these problems, but speeches of the sort made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West cannot be helpful to either responsible management or responsible labour.

Mr. R. W. Brown: Is my hon. Friend not seized of the importance of what the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) actually said, since he suggested that anybody who exercised restraint was a saboteur? Those are the significant words which the right hon. Gentleman uttered and I shall remind him of them from time to time.

Mr. Mapp: I was obviously being rather generous to the right hon. Gentleman. However, he must realise that by using language of that sort he is turning the clock back. If he wants to turn the clock back, then I must ask what will be the philosophy of the rest of his party, of which he is a prominent member, on issues of this sort.

Mr. Rees-Davies: The argument is a simple one. It is that if one is a servant of the House of Commons, a civil servant or working in a position of responsibility—and railwaymen are serving in a nationalised industry and are supposed to be serving the nation—and if one goes on strike in breach of one's contract and obligations, it is worth considering whether some Government action should not be taken about it. That is the problem. I will not have an opportunity of addressing the Committee, but I hope that you will apply your mind to this matter.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman must not ask me to apply my mind to anything but the rules of order.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I apologise, Dr. King.

Mr. Mapp: I heard the hon. Gentleman's earlier intervention, but this is a fantasy of his own.

Mr. Rees-Davies: It is not a fantasy at all.

Mr. Mapp: The question of the judgment and relatively of what one attaches to work is, in the main, based on the response that one receives in the sort of organisation that exists—that is, the team spirit and humanity that exists in any industry or firm. That is the true position and there is no point in the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) having some other conception of things. One cannot have the sort of political argument that was adduced last night on such an important principle and at the same time say to busmen, railwaymen and others that the same philosophy should not apply to them. It ill becomes hon. Gentlemen opposite to take that attitude.
Although we have heard a number of speeches from hon. Gentlemen opposite criticising the present arrangements, it is to be wondered why, when they were in office, they did not do something to cure the difficulties. Perhaps it is belated recognition on their part that something was wrong. The railwaymen will deplore many of the things said by hon. Gentlemen opposite and will have even less confidence in their party. They will not be able to forget that this debate has been used for an event in Brighton and purely for the narrow, short-term political interests of the Tory Party.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. J. B. Godber: This debate has enabled a number of hon. Members to call attention to the very real hardship and inconvenience suffered by so many of their constituents—in the South-East, particularly—during recent weeks. My right hon. Friends the Members for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) and Ashford (Mr. Deedes) particularly brought out this aspect. In addition, a number of points have been made by hon. Members who though their constituencies are not so much immediately affected by the present issue, have tried to look at the problem as a whole.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) and my hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Atkins) made some very sound and practical suggestions, but one difficulty in such a debate as this is that


uppermost in the minds of most, and certainly it must be in the mind of the Minister of Labour, is the need to try to bring matters to a satisfactory conclusion. It was my experience when I held the right hon. Gentleman's office, and I am sure that it is his, that public comment by those with special responsibility for industrial peace must be made, very carefully, otherwise it can do more harm than good.
I therefore intend to be somewhat restrained in what I say, because I do not want to exacerbate things. I shall certainly not follow the example of the present Prime Minister who, when I was at the Ministry of Labour, on several occasions attacked me in the middle of disputes. That certainly made my task very much more difficult. Nor will I claim that there is political motivation here.
I listened carefully to what the Minister of Labour had to say this afternoon. At the very beginning of his speech he told us that he thoroughly deplored this unofficial action, and made his concern for commuters quite clear. He has made himself clear on this subject before, and there is no doubt that everyone knows where he stands.
I do not propose to follow the right hon. Gentleman in detail, but will make one or two general observations. First, it has certainly been my experience that in most industrial disputes the blame is seldom entirely on one side. The glaring fact about this particular problem is the length of time during which this matter has been under consideration. The Minister faced up to this, and said that he accepted that there was some justification in the criticism and that it had helped to exacerbate the problem. He traced the proceedings through from last October, and said that there was this gap between November and this summer when very little materialised, although negotiations were no doubt going on. This is the sort of thing that, time and again, causes trouble. The men's impatience increases, and the one or two who want to stir up trouble by building on feelings of frustration find the opportunity in such delay as this. While I understand the problems involved, I am quite sure that there has been a failure

at some stage, somewhere, on someone's part over these months.
I do not know what steps have been taken by the Railways Board or by the official union leadership during this period to get the real facts of the case and of the problems confronting the railways over to the men concerned. What I do know is that if anyone wants to stir up trouble, his task is made easier if insufficient care is taken by management to give the facts. It is the job of management to do this. The right hon. Gentleman knows that this was an issue on which I felt very strongly when I was in his position, and I should like to know what arrangements the management has, other than through the unions to provide proper communication with the rank and file.
I have never felt it to be the job of the unions to explain the management's position to the workers. It is for management, by proper communication, to get that over. I have always looked on railwaymen as I have looked on other workers as very sensible people when the facts are given to them. I think that there has been a slip up here and I hope that those responsible for railway management will consider whether there is not more they can and should do. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport will be able to say something about this. One or two hon. Members suggested that management consultants should be brought in. I do not know whether that is necessary but, again, the right hon. Gentleman may be able to tell us what is being done in this respect, particularly in the Southern Region.
Secondly, co-operation in increased productivity is absolutely essential in every section of British industry today. It is the only way in which a high and rising purchasing power can be achieved by the people—and that cannot be said too often. Those who oppose such a basic principle are working against the interests of themselves and their colleagues, as well as of the community as a whole. If other countries can go on increasing productivity at a rate higher than wage increases, surely we can do the same.
Thirdly, unofficial action in any union is harmful to the whole body of trade unionism in this country. It destroys the value of the men's own elected leaders,


and makes it impossible for them to negotiate effectively. Those who want to see sound industrial relations in this country, wherever they may sit in this House, must have the courage to speak out firmly against unofficial action, as the Minister has done this afternoon. Hon. Members opposite who have talked a good deal today did not face up to this necessity, despite the lead given them by their own Front Bench. It is a pity. The Minister of Labour has said this, so has the General Secretary of the A.S.L.E.F., any they must have the support of those who represent them in the House.
Again, those who really believe in a healthy and sound trade union organisation—and they are certainly not confined to the benches opposite—have to face up to the harm that is done by disputes in public services, where grave hardship is caused to the public at large. We have had two occasions this summer, both unofficial, when the public have had to suffer. There was the Whitsun strike at London Airport, of which the Minister of Labour had personal knowledge, and now we have the trouble that has given rise to this debate.
No one denies a man the right to withhold his labour; this is a basic freedom, just as is freedom of speech. But freedom is not licence. One may take freedom of speech as an example, but there are also laws of libel and slander. In the same way, there must be concern for and control of the use of any kind of freedom—otherwise, eventually, it is lost. People must face this fact, otherwise hardship is imposed on, in this case, the travelling public.
There is a problem here, because one of the old sanctions against strikes in the public service has gone. A strike originally started as a means of bringing pressure to bear on the employer, particularly on his pocket but, as has now been made clear, a strike in a public service does not affect the employer, except that the taxpayer is the employer—the commuter, who really bears the full brunt, pays through his suffering and through his pocket too. He is the person with no control over the issues concerned. We have to find ways, particularly in the public sector, by which the public can be safeguarded. Otherwise we shall get the very worst effects.

We shall see public anger growing more and more against trade unionism in a way which basically is probably unfair to the men concerned. On both sides of the Committee we must face this.
The Minister told us today of the actions taken so far in this dispute and he brought us up to date on the matter. He told us that he saw the A.S.L.E.F. leaders on Tuesday night and again yesterday and that they have now agreed to recall their conference for 10th August. I guess that he feels as I do, that it is a pity that that is so far ahead. I should have hoped that it would be possible to have it earlier. I noted the reasons the right hon. Gentleman retailed as given to him. This matter is in the hands of the union, but it seems a pity that it should be so long ahead. However, if they have to take this time they can press on all their members to honour the appeal made to them from all concerned to end the go slow in the meantime.
I think that should be asked for by both sides of this Committee. If that is so and at the conference greater freedom is given to the leadership, I hope it will lead to wiser counsels and a solution which can be honourable to all concerned. I do not wish to deal with that further now because it is unwise to speculate more about it. This is where the issue is left at the moment. I thought that words I read in the Daily Mirror today were very much to the point in regard to this dispute. It said at the end of a leading article:
Responsible trade unionism is impossible if union negotiators cannot rely on the loyalty of the members who elected them.
I thought that hit the nail on the head and I hope that it will have been read very widely.
This debate will have failed if we and Ministers particularly do not take away with us a very firm determination when the dispute is finally disposed of as disputes have to be—they are burning issues at the moment but people are glad to let them drop eventually—to consider very carefully the lessons to be learned. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford was right when he said that lessons have to be learned from this dispute and we have to see that this sort of thing cannot arise again, at any rate in this


form. We have to see if necessary that the negotiating machinery of British Railways is looked at afresh.
I recall vividly a debate, not on the railways, which we had upstairs recently, when an hon. Member explained that sometimes unofficial strikes take place because the negotiating machinery is so bad in an industry. He used this as a justification. I think the Minister of Labour recalls the speech to which I refer and recalls the name of the hon. Member who made it. This sort of thing is nonsense. If there is something wrong with the negotiating machinery we have to get it right when the heat is off. No doubt this is something which the Minister will want to consider. There are lessons to be learned from these unhappy events and the sooner we learn them the better.
Perhaps the commuters who have suffered will not mind their suffering so much if it is seen to have been not in vain. This issue coming at this time and the other issue will, I hope, cause an analysis to be made of what has happened and that it will go to the Royal Commission on Trade Unions for that body can draw a lesson from it. If it is able to put forward ideas as a result this may have been in some sense a blessing in disguise. I hope that this will happen and that people will not just shrug the matter off and leave us to carry on as before.
The Minister of Labour, at the end of his speech this afternoon, said:
If the unofficial action continues the Government cannot and will not stand aside.
Those were brave words. The Minister has used brave words before, but he did not give us any explanation of what he had in mind. I realise that it would be unreasonable of me to expect a precise explanation in regard to this because of the negotiations in which he is involved. I am not asking for that now, but I am reminding him that those words are on the record and if he does not follow them up there will be bitter disappointment.

Mr. Gunter: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for the way in which he has approached this matter and particularly for the fact that he is not pressing me to explain what I have in mind, but I repeat what I have said. I have

explained to A.S.L.E.F. that if by the end of the week there is not a cessation of the trouble we shall certainly take action.

Mr. Godber: I shall not press the right hon. Gentleman further. I am glad if we can bring this unfortunate matter to a close on this note, and I hope that that is so.

7.46 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Tom Fraser): I have listened to virtually the whole debate and I have no complaint to make about the time it has taken. I was a little apprehensive before the debate lest speeches might be made which might make the position worse, particularly in the Southern Region, and make a settlement of the problem even more difficut. I can say now at the end of the debate that no such speeches have been made. The debate certainly cannot have done any harm and I hope very much that it will have done some good.
I also observe, as I start what I hope will be a very short concluding speech to this discussion, that no one in the whole debate has accused my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour of not taking action as soon as he reasonably could. Without making too much of a party point of it, I think it will be readily conceded that when we have discussed these things in the past we have discussed them in circumstances of there having been widespread criticism of the Minister of Labour at the time for not intervening as quickly as he might have done and for waiting until there was great public agitation in favour of intervention. That has not happened on this occasion.

Mr. Godber: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would specify the occasions. I recall no debate when this happened, but I remember some rather intemperate attacks being made by his Leader.

Mr. Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman would not recall the debates I have in mind. I have in mind a good many debates on occasions when there has been industrial trouble and the Minister of Labour has not intervened at all. On many occasions I remember his pleading that it would not be timely for him so to do. I merely observe that on the occasion of this debate, in speeches today, no one has accused the Minister of Labour of dragging his feet.
The speech to which we have just listened from the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) I thought a very good speech in the circumstances, one, I should have thought, calculated to help to find a solution to the problem. It was in striking contrast to the speech with which the debate was opened. In the past I have had a certain admiration for the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I do not remember a single occasion on which I have agreed with him, but I have often recognised the logic of his argument and respected the sincerity with which he held and expressed his views. But this afternoon the right hon. Gentleman made a few quotations. He indulged in some rather cheap party politics. He went on to argue, I thought most illogically, that, because British Railways has an operating deficit which must be met by the taxpayer, therefore the responsibility for finding a solution to the dispute lies, not with the Railways Board, not with the trade unions, certainly not with the commuters, but with the Government.
I did not follow that at all. The responsibility for the running of the railways was put fairly and squarely upon the Railways Board by the 1962 Act. When the right hon. Gentleman was making his point about the deficit, saying that the taxpayer was providing not only most of the bread but all of the butter, he was right on the edge of arguing that the commuter should pay a good deal more than he is paying at present. No sooner had the right hon. Gentleman sat down than his right hon. and hon. Friends made their speeches more directly on behalf of the commuters, saying that already fares are too high.
Before the debate had gone very far I could see once again, as I have seen so frequently in the course of the past eight or nine months, that the Party opposite is totally divided on this issue. The right hon. Lady the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) complained about the great financial burden carried by her constituents in the high fares they had to pay. Her constituents have not had a penny increase in fares since the change in Government last October. The increases in fares she talked about since 1950 were all applied during the period of the Con-

servative Government. Her constituents would have had an increase in fares more recently had I not stepped in and appealed to the London Transport Board and the Railways Board not to increase fares in the London area.
I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West thinks that I did the right thing. Commuters from outside the London passenger traffic area have paid more. They have been paying more since the beginning of the year. I have had very strong representations against the ability of the Railways Board to increase the fares of commuters from outside the London passenger traffic area without going to any tribunal. The right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) decided that those who live outside the London traffic area ought not to have any right of objection to fares increases imposed by the Railways Board. At one time they had such a right. There was the Fares Tribunal before that, but not after the passing of the 1962 Act. After that, the only body of railway passengers who were to be given any protection at all by an independent tribunal were those within the London passenger traffic area. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Wallasey ought to have listened to some of the speeches made by his right hon. and hon. Friends during the course of the debate.

Mr. Ernest Marples: I did.

Mr. Fraser: If the right hon. Gentleman heard them, he did not hear them from the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Marples: I heard them.

Mr. Fraser: If the right hon. Gentleman heard them, perhaps he will be able to give the answer to his right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Marples: The Minister is giving that.

The Chairman: Even front benchers must conform to the rules of the House, and if they want to intervene they must intervene in the proper way.

Mr. R. W. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman is after the leadership.

Mr. Fraser: Dr. King, I believe that in this place we are expected to work to


rule. A good deal was said by hon. Members opposite about the deterioration in the services as well as about the increases in fares. It is not for me to make a long speech today about the improvement in the services or about the capital investment in the whole of the southern area over a period of years. I shall not make that type of speech. There is not the time. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members opposite would in other circumstances have claimed that the Railways Board and the London Transport Board had done not badly in the past 10 years in the capital investment programme which has been carried through with a view to increasing the seating capacity of nearly all the commuter services we have been discussing, and lengthening platforms so that, where additional trains could not be put on, at any rate longer trains could be put on. The hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) said that the Railways Board used coaches which dated from pre-war—if not before he was born, he said.

Mr. Doughty: I said that the stations dated from before I was born and that the trains, if not pre-war, were of pre-war pattern and design.

Mr. Fraser: I do not think that even the hon. and learned Gentleman would want the Railways Board or the London Transport Board to replace stations from time to time. They might modernise stations. I should like it very much if stations were modernised, but the stations are there in these commuter areas. A good deal of the rolling stock has been renewed since the war. Much of it has been renewed in the last 10 years. I make these points merely to show that there was a little extravagance about the the accusations which were made about the failure of the Railways Board, and therefore of the Government of the day, to meet the needs of commuters in London and the London area.
The right hon. Member for Grantham said that there had been some failure on someone's part in that these negotiations had continued for so long without a solution being found. I think that he is right. He asked me if I would in the circumstances say what I thought about the way in which the Railways Board had carried

through its communications with its employees. I think that on reflection the right hon. Gentleman would want me to reserve my answer for another occasion because, if I were at this point of time to start to apportion responsibility for the delay as between the Railways Board and the railway unions, I think that I would then be doing that which I have congratulated right hon. and hon. Members opposite on for not doing in the course of this debate—I should thereby make a solution just a little more difficult.

Mr. Godber: I understand the Minister's difficulty. The point I was getting at was not only about the dispute, but that whilst the dispute was pending the Board itself ought to have got the facts over. This is a communications exercise as distinct from the dispute. This was the real point I was arguing at that moment.

Mr. Fraser: I appreciate the point. I appreciate, too, that the right hon. Gentleman was asking if we could get the Railways Board to do rather better at other times. He did not want it related only to this dispute, but he asked me the question within the context of this dispute having dragged on for such a long time. I could deal with the question only by referring to the failure during this period, and I do not want to start apportioning blame on one side or the other.

Mr. Deedes: I appreciate the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making about the dispute which is now on, but will he answer the question which I asked? When the dispute is over, is he prepared to examine the conduct of this machinery and satisfy himself whether it is adequate or not for the future?

Mr. Fraser: I am not satisfied with the working of the existing machinery, but I am not satisfied either that I or my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour could possibly impose new machinery upon the two sides in this industry. We must work for a greater measure of agreement for the acceptance of machinery which would make it easier and not more difficult to resolve differences when they arise. It is apparent already that the Government have not shrunk from the possibility of looking for solutions of difficult problems. Reference has been made


by the right hon. Member for Grantham to the Royal Commission on trade unions and the whole question of determining incomes.
As a Government we have carried out this whole philosophy of having prices and incomes determined rationally on a national basis. We have gone further than any other Government has gone in this country. We are seen to be facing up to these problems in a way in which they have not been faced hitherto. This does not mean that we can look at a piece of negotiating machinery in one industry or another and say that that machinery is wrong and that some other machinery is right and then impose it.
Let us have discussions with the Railways Board and the unions, with the employers' representatives and representatives of workers generally and try to create a new atmosphere and, where need be, new machinery which will enable our differences to be resolved more readily in the future. Some of the suggestions made have not been very helpful. The right hon. Lady the Member for Chislehurst appealed to the trade unions. She referred to trade unions which sometimes send a man to Coventry, or some such phrase, because for reasons which seem to him good and sufficient he will not join a trade union. At the same time, she said that the trade unions should take definite action against the motormen who are working to rule.
The right hon. Lady was cheered and many hon. Members said that they accepted every word she said. My right hon. Friend interrupted to ask what the right hon. Lady had in mind and what the union executives should do, but no one has answered that question. Equally, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said that responsibility for the solution of the dispute lay with the Government, but he had no single suggestion to make as to what action the Government should take to bring the dispute to an end.
In the same way, when it has been suggested that A.S.L.E.F. should take action against the motormen who are at present working to rule or going slow, no one has suggested what is meant by taking appropriate action against those people, because no one has the slightest idea what it means. It sounds well. It will look well in the local newspapers

and it may please some unthinking commuters, but it will make no contribution to the solution of the difficulty.

Mr. Walter Monslow: I have received a communication today asking me to speak for the very members who are involved and I propose to submit the communication later to the Minister. Any replacement of the organisation, with which I have had a long association, is an idea which I hope will be dispelled. Every conceivable step has been taken by the organisation, its chief administrative officers and its executive committee for constitutional action. I want to say a few words about—

The Chairman: Order The hon. Member cannot make a speech in the guise of an intervention.

Mr. Monslow: I appreciate the point but I was hoping to make a statement which I thought would be helpful. I have no desire to make a speech. I put a further point to the Minister, as to whether he is aware that there are considerable feelings of frustration owing to the procrastination that has taken place in expediting a decision.

Mr. Fraser: I appreciate my hon. Friend's intervention, but I think that in the course of the debate there has been a good deal of recognition on both sides of the Committee that the motormen have a grievance. It has been recognised on both sides of the Committee also that the union has been doing its best to get the men on to normal working to enable the negotiations to proceed. There has been very little criticism of the way in which the participants have behaved, except that there has been repeated regret that it has taken such a long time to find a solution, and there has been great regret and widespread recognition of the hardship and misery caused to the commuters who, after all, are the victims.
It is because it would be easier for me today to make things more difficult than to make them less difficult that I am very reluctant to go any further than I have gone. I do not think that those who have asked me a number of questions want me to give them answers today, although I have provided myself with a number of answers for them.
I think that we might well end up the debate by letting it go out of the Committee that all of us are determined to do what we can to find a solution of the problem. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has spoken of his determination not to shrink from his responsibility if further action on his part should be required. That having been accepted by the right hon. Member for Grantham, it would be better now if I were to resume my seat and allow the Committee to discuss other matters. I do so, repeating my gratitude to hon. Members in all parts of the Committee for the way in which they have debated this matter.

Mr. Brian O'Malley: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CLASS I

VOTE 6. POST OFFICE MINISTERS

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £7,250, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, for the salaries of Post Office Ministers. [£5,000 has been voted on account.]

POST OFFICE SERVICES

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Marples: After that very short speech by the Minister of Transport, who said that he would speak for two or three minutes, I will try to be as brief as possible in opening this debate for which we have only one hour and fifty minutes, which does not give the Postmaster-General very long to explain his policy.
This is my first speech for six years on Post Office affairs. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on becoming the 95th Postmaster-General since 1691. The right hon. Gentleman has always been keen on Post Office affairs. I have never had the opportunity to thank him for some of the very kind remarks he has made about me when I was the 93rd Postmaster-General. My wife reminded me today that the right hon. Gentleman said on "Any Questions?" that I was

the best Postmaster-General in living memory. He may have changed his mind by now because of his recent appointment, but I am grateful to him and I do not disagree too violently with his then pronouncement. I will mention a few of the complaints which are made about the Post Office and try to make some constructive suggestions. In Opposition, the right hon. Gentleman was always constructive and never solely destructive. I will try to be the same.
As to complaints, we have to recognise that the British people grumble at a number of things—the weather and any public service that may be offered to them, whether it is the railways or the Post Office. One cannot win. I remember that when I first became Minister of Transport, the public complained bitterly that traffic in London was grinding to a halt. Then we got it moving faster and I got a letter addressed, "Speed Maniac Marples, London", complaining that it was going like Brands Hatch. So one cannot win. Neither can the right hon. Gentleman. With his fortitude, however, he will not mind that.
I have a number of examples of the present service of the Post Office and there is not a shadow of doubt that it is deteriorating, and deteriorating rapidly, on both telephone and post office sides. The Telephone Users' Association—I do not know whether this is correct—claims that in 1935, one telephone call in 10,000 in London was liable to fail, but that now the ratio is one in six. That association complains about a loss of export orders through the general lack of efficiency in the Post Office. It complains also that it sometimes takes 11, 12 or 13 minutes for an operator to reply.
I know the Postmaster-General's difficulties, but my personal experiences are such that I am certain that for one reason or another the services supplied by the Post Office are not as good today as they were in the past and that they have been deteriorating over quite a number of years. One cannot particularly blame the right hon. Gentleman, and that I am not seeking to do. All I am saying is that the services have deteriorated.
Today I telephoned the Postmaster-General's office to verify some of my figures and I got two wrong numbers,


which was irritating, a crossed line and another conversation, which was very interesting but it would be out of order to tell the Committee what I heard—it was rather like "What the butler saw".
Without doubt, these complaints are numerous. On the whole they are justified and they cover a wide range of services. I believe that it is time for fundamental changes in the structure of the Post Office. It must be done root and branch; one cannot tinker with the problem. I will try to make some constructive suggestions about the way the Postmaster-General's mind should, during the next few months, be devoted to reorganisation.
Let me analyse the organisation of the Post Office. First, it is too big. Imperial Chemical Industries employs 120,000 people. The Post Office, including sub-postmasters, employs 400,000 people, which makes I.C.I. petty cash in comparison. Bigness by itself would not matter provided that the end product was a unified one, but it is not a unified product in this case, because my second point is that the Post Office is a large collection and combination of a number of very different undertakings. Some of them are highly technical and highly sophisticated, such as a satellite and telecommunications, whereas others are rather pedestrian, like the delivery of parcels. It is by nature a ragbag of a wide variety. The varieties differ so widely that they do not form a natural or convenient collection which can be organised by one management.
I turn to a very good book on the Post Office, written by an American, Howard Robinson, entitled "Britain's Post Office". Lord Wolmer in the 1920s had a pamphlet called "Post Office Reform". It was really Rowland Hill's pamphlet. He
put the essential cause for any postal shortcomings on the unfitness of the organisation to supervise such varied activities. He declared that the administrative arrangements were not much different from those that had been assumed 'about the year 1855'".
In effect, therefore, in the 1920s, it was thought that the Post Office's activities were so widely varied and dispersed that some other form of organisation should take their place. That is my first point. The second is that it is too varied in nature.
My third point—and I am sure that I will carry hon. Members with me in this—concerns Treasury control. When I became Postmaster-General in 1955 and was asked to run this commercial organisation, I was horrified to find that all the moneys that the Post Office received were to be paid into the Exchequer, that all the expenditure which came out was to be paid by the Treasury and that the Treasury retained the right of control over the Estimates. That had been going on since 1787. I made some effort to try to remove this commercial organisation, because that is what it is, out of the control of the Treasury. I now believe that it should be moved further outside the Treasury control until the Treasury has nothing whatever to do with the Post Office. I ask the Postmaster-General to consider that suggestion.
Fourthly, if one analyses the Post Office one sees that it is an old organisation; and old organisations, whether shipbuilding, mining or the Post Office, tend to resist change. They cannot help it. It is in the nature of an old organisation. All the very old organisations which we have in this country should be revamped and reshaped from time to time.
One of the reasons for the success of certain European countries after the Second World War was that everything they stood for was destroyed and they started anew. Germany was blitzed and there was very little left, France was occupied and Japan had felt the atom bomb, but we in this country did not. We continued on the same basis as we had before. Often in an old organisation, or an old company or culture, it behoves us to have some sort of violent change, and then we can start anew and do well. This applies to the Post Office.
There was an experiment in America in, I think, the G.E.C. when the lighting on a production belt was altered and production increased. Everybody hated the change at first. Then the workers were very happy and the production increased. Then the lighting was altered again, back to what it was before, and again production increased. There is no doubt that people as a whole resist change. They curse it when it happens, they grudgingly admit that it is not so bad, then they accept it. Therefore, I think that in the


Post Office we ought to have some violent change. The Post Office has been going on for about 400 years. I shall try to illustrate what sort of change we should have.
One thing which I should like to ask the Postmaster-General is a purely personal question. I have always thought that the uniform that we give to postmen is pretty horrible. It is blue serge which never keeps its crease. When I was at the Post Office I started an experiment on new uniforms and I used "Terylene", which will always keep its crease. It was not too bad. The firm which made the suit that I am wearing did not present me with it but charged me for it. During my term of office I tried out this material on the postmen and it was very good, because this suit has not been pressed for about five or six years. That was why I got it. A man cannot have self-respect unless he is decently dressed. That was what I tried to bring about.
When I tried to bring that about, there was one unholy row because the union and the officials of the Post Office had been cogitating in a working party for about two or three years about what sort of uniform they should have. We did this in about six weeks. I do not know how this experiment has gone. Would the right hon. Gentleman like to tell me now or later?

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): Later.

Mr. Marples: Very well. This is quite a good suit, and it has worn very well. I have lost a little weight since it was made for me, but apart from that, it is all right.
Old institutions resist change. There is no worse institution than the House of Commons for resisting change. We have hardly any modern devices here. We still have the Official Reporters for recording the speeches of hon. Members. They do extremely good work, but magnetic tapes would be just as good—except that they would not put in the verbs which we miss out from our speeches.
Not only do we in the House of Commons resist change; we try to reverse the procedure. The only electronic gadget or device of modern times which we have is a Division bell which rings in a private house or club. Yet the modernisers

among hon. Members opposite have tabled a Motion to the effect that we should prohibit the ringing of Division bells in private houses, flats and clubs. They want to dispense with the only modern electronic device which we have. These are the modernisers of the twentieth century.

Mr. A. Woodburn: With eighteenth century tricks.

Mr. Marples: Surely eighteenth centrury tricks should not deny us twentieth century devices. Therefore, my fourth point is that old organisations always resist change. I am very anxious that other hon. Members should have a chance to speak. I am racing through my speech because we have not a lot of time for this debate, which is a great pity.
I come to two conclusions. One is on the top management of the Post Office, and the other is on the organisation of the Post Office as a business. On the top management of the Post Office, I have come to the conclusion, having spent almost three years in the Department, that a Postmaster-General who is a Member of this House has insufficient time to devote to leading and managing such a big business. I have looked back into the history of some of the Postmaster-General's predecessors. In the book which I mentioned, "Britain's Post Office", it is stated:
The shifting leadership of so large a business as the Post Office was emphasised by the changes in the headship at this time; it was frequently affected by Cabinet changes made for political reasons. In fact, the year 1931 had more Postmasters-General than any other year in the whole history of the Post Office; four held office in that year.
The average term of office of a Postmaster-General is two years and two months. The shortest term is two months. I do not think that that is sufficient time for a Postmaster-General to leave his imprint on the Department.
I am reinforced in this view by the opinion of one of the four Postmasters-General who served in 1931, the noble Lord, Earl Attlee. I quote the words which he used in 1931 as they appear in this book:
A succession of short-term Postmasters-General leads either to discontinuity of policy or to the passing of real control into the hands of the permanent officials.


I believe that Earl Attlee was right. My experience as Postmaster-General confirms me in that view. This book says that Mr. Attlee, as he then was,
wished the Treasury control 'as now exercised' to be abolished. … he did not believe it wise that the great body of civil servants in the Post Office should be headed by a 'transitory political chief'.
He suggested that there should be a non-parliamentary Postmaster-General.
If Earl Attlee suggested that in 1931, how much more relevant is it today? In 1931 there were under 2 million telephones. Now we have passed the 10 million mark. In 1931 the turnover was £72 million. Now it is nine times greater—£647 million. In 1931 the staff numbered 232,000. Now the figure is 400,000, almost twice as many as there were in 1931. Not only is the volume of Post Office business greater than when Lord Attlee said that; the variety is different. We now have television. The rate of change is terrific. The Post Office must handle the transmission of data for computers. This is a big technological change which will require an immense effort to make it succeed. The nature of the system is altering all the time. The Postmaster-General announced yesterday that we shall add to it the giro system. All I say is that if what Earl Attlee said in 1931 was right, it must be right now—indeed, more so. It is time that the top management of the Post Office was removed to somebody outside the House who can devote all his time to it instead of somebody in the House who devotes part of his time to it.
When I was at the Post Office and at the Ministry of Transport I had to decide how to reorganise the business. There are only two possible ways of reorganising a business. We either accept the existing structure and try to alter it by adding to it or subtracting from it, or start with a completely new approach and ask ourselves what we would do with the Post Office or the railways, or whatever it is, if we had to start from scratch. That is what we did with the railways. We had to think what would happen on the railways if we came down from Heaven and found that there were no railways in this country. We had to decide what sort of railway system we should have if we started from scratch with a lot of money and the power to buy land so that we could put the system down. This is the

approach which we should have with regard to the Post Office. We should start de novo.
I have come to these conclusions. The first is that the organisation of the Post Office is too big for one man to control and effectively to manage. Therefore, it must be split into smaller suitable units. I suggest that it should be split into three units. First, I would hive off the telephones completely because I think that they have nothing whatsoever in common with the Post Office. They are completely divorced technically from the Post Office functions, and they should be completely separate.
I should like the telephone organisation to be formed rather like it is in America. I tell the Committee frankly that I believe that the American telephone system is better than ours. I think that the right hon. Gentleman himself does, too, because he said so in a speech in July. We ought to have our telephones in a public utility company similar to the Bell telephone system, and in this way three results could be achieved. First, the Treasury will not be the shareholder. The Treasury does not understand business at all. The shareholding should be spread widely, because that helps to create a property-owning democracy. Secondly, there should be a commercial board, because this gives flexibility, efficient management and very good research. The Bell Telephone Company's research is about the finest in the world that I have ever seen. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman who, I believe, has been fortunate enough to marry an American lady, will go to see the Bell Telephone Company and the A.T. and T.
Thirdly, it must be possible to control the prices which the telephone public utility charges its customers for the service. This happens in the United States. Each individual State has power to challenge the Bell Telephone Company if it wants to raise its prices. There should be a full-time chairman, and the choice of chairman should be from the whole population, not necessarily from the 300 or so Members of Parliament who happen to support the Government of the day, whether from that side or this.
Next, I should invite some of the Bell telephone people to join the board because they know the technical developments in their country and there could


be cross-fertilisation between what happens there and what happens here. If they thought that we were not advanced enough technically, they could say so, and their experience of what they do in America could be applied here, and applied quickly. I should like to see cross-fertilisation also not only between Post Office engineering on the telephone side and industry in this country but between Post Office engineering and American industry. I should like 100 or so American engineers across here with their manning scales, and 100 of ours across there with our manning scales. In this way, we could introduce a competitive element which would probably be good for both countries. That is the first section which I should hive off from the Post Office.
The second is the Post Office itself. The Post Office faces a very difficult position. Costs are rising and it is a labour-intensive industry. The man who has to sort letters and deliver them is a very expensive commodity. People are always reluctant to pay for service in public transport, the Post Office or whatever it is. They criticise it all the time. But there must be standardisation, rationalisation and automation in the Post Office services—and in our travel arrangements as well, at London Airport, for example—the like of which we have never known before. Not only must we have standard envelopes and some standard stationery, which I started when I was at the Post Office—

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): The right hon. Gentleman did not think of it.

Mr. Marples: I did not know that the right hon. Gentleman had been at the Post Office. He was on the Advisory Committee, but his advice was not very useful, if I remember aright.

Mr. Ross: While the right hon. Gentleman was Postmaster-General we seldom met.

Mr. Marples: That was because the advice from the right hon. Gentleman was so bad. In fact, we met a great deal. The right hon. Gentleman's contributions were very short and not very helpful.

Mr. Ross: It is a pity that my advice was not taken.

Mr. Marples: The right hon. Gentleman mutters from a sedentary position that something was a pity. It was a pity inasmuch as I thought that his fertile mind would have produced more. But it did not. Now he is wreaking devastation at the Scottish Office, and we shall pay for it there in due course.
On the automation side, I am certain that sooner or later, we shall have not only standard envelopes but standard packages for parcels, and we shall come to standard baggage at London Airport, with a special place for a label which can be easily read by some sort of electronic eye, giving ready sorting. The porters will not be able to go on strike because there will not be any porters to stop people going on their holidays. If people want separate baggage of a different size, they will be able to have it, but they will have to pay. I am quite certain that in this country, as in America, we shall come down to standard things which are easily handled. Therefore, I want the Post Office, together with the travel agencies, to get down to this problem of automation.

Mr. Cyril Bence: It sounds like regimentation.

Mr. Marples: It is not regimentation. Anyone can have what size of baggage he wants. The only point is that if it is standard it is cheap, but if it is odd it is expensive. People must make their choice. It is not regimentation. It is free choice. This is what the Postmaster-General intends to do. I hope he does it. I shall back him up if he does. The idea is that the standard envelope, with some sort of symbol on it, not a stamp but something which can be electronically read very easily, will be cheap, but if someone wants a fancy envelope of a different shape or size it will be expensive. That is not regimentation. It is free choice. I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman saying that, after supporting me for so long over so many years from below the Gangway when on this side of the Chamber. He is an absolute reactionary.
On the Post Office side, therefore, we want a full-time chairman of automation. The financial and banking side and the


savings side are, I believe, another natural division. Therefore, I say to the right hon. Gentleman, if he wants to go down in history as one of the brightest of Postmasters-General, that he ought to work himself out of his job and make himself redundant and divide the Post Office into three manageable units of the right things collected together in a suitable way so that they can be managed by somebody. I am sure he will agree with me when he winds up.
I want to say one thing to the right hon. Gentleman. It is this. I remember that he was shadow Minister of Transport when I first became Minister of Transport, and we had some very agreeable debates indeed, and he was very polite to me. He has been one of the few on that side who has been polite. That probably cost him his place in the party. But I remember saying to him, "Thought is easy but action is difficult"—and that is a quotation from Goethe. I think this is the problem which faces us, not only in the Post Office but in this country as a whole. We argue enormously and at great length, we read more newspapers per head than any other nation in the world, and we talk incessantly, but we do not do. I believe he could make his name by doing something for the Post Office, and I have tried to help him enormously by indicating the general lines on which his very fertile mind should concentrate. I cannot do more to help him earn the excessive salary which he gets—twice as much as I got when I was Postmaster-General. I must say to him, in spite of his great kindness to me in the past, which I do appreciate, that tonight it is my unpleasant duty to do two things. The first is to propose a reduction in his salary, which I think is excessive anyhow, and the second is to ask him to work himself out of his job. I think he will be doing the nation a service if he follows the advice of both the then Mr. Attlee and now mine. What a unique combination—from the 1930s and the former Prime Minister and leader of his own party, to now and the person who is leading in this debate. I am giving the right hon. Gentleman that advice and I hope he follows it. If he does follow it, I can assure him that, if he is constructive, he will get the support of this side of the Committee, and get it unstintingly.

8.38 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater): This is to be a very short debate, but I think everyone will agree that we have listened to a most remarkable speech to start it. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) really thinks that the type of speech he made on the Post Office services will gain him in the headlines tomorrow the name "Marples the Great Moderniser". I think that is what he was seeking. The right hon. Gentleman is in a very strange position. Here he is shadowing my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General. Last week he was shadowing my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology. Next week—who can tell?—he may be shadowing my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

Mr. Marples: I do not want to stop the hon. Gentleman in full flood, but I am not shadowing anybody. I am not shadowing the Minister of Technology—although he was here when I started and has left now that I have finished.

Mr. Slater: That may be the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, but the opinion of our people on this side of the Committee is that what the right hon. Gentleman is seeking is to shadow my right hon. Friend here tonight. He was shadowing the Minister of Technology last week and he may be seeking to shadow the Minister of Housing and Local Government next week, and in the first week of August he may be seeking to shadow the Minister of Transport. He has become very versatile in the course of his duties and experiences in various Departments, and it looks as though he will become so versatile that I am afraid he will have to get out again that cycle we heard so much about in the past which he used to ride to the House of Commons.
This is a short debate, but a very important one, and I am pleased that we have this opportunity to say something in reply to the criticisms which have been made against the Post Office services. All Postmasters-General have been subject to criticism, both in this House and outside it, regarding the efficiency of the services provided by the Post Office, and no doubt this will continue to be the case so long as Ministers


are responsible for the day-to-day administration. I do not in any way object to that, provided that the criticism is intended to improve the services, and is not merely destructive.
As the right hon. Gentleman reminded us, the Post Office has been with us for a very long time. It is true that it covers a wide field. It is subject to change within its operations, and more so now than at any time in its history. No one has been more conscious of this than has my right hon. Friend who has taken over the responsibility for this great organisation. When criticism is directed against the services, what does it indicate? It indicates the importance of the postal services to the nation, and the important part they have to play in the economy of our country if it is to be properly phased and to succeed.
The Post Office, while seeking to keep pace with modern trends in outlook, is greatly dependent on those engaged in its services. This seems to be overlooked by many of its critics. They overlook the fact that if we are to be efficient, and if we are to give the service which is expected of us by the general public, we can achieve this only by having good relationships with those who are employed in the service. I submit that the man who delivers the mail is as important as the top executive. To put it another way, he is an integral part of a great operation, and any breakdown in the machinery means that the cycle of operation takes much longer to complete. What I am trying to say is that whatever the grade of a man in the Post Office services, he has a mind of his own, he knows how to express himself, and I would not have it otherwise.
During the last eight months, I have met many of the local representatives at places which I have visited in an effort to get their reaction to the way the services are being run and any ideas for improvement. As the right hon. Gentleman said, we are the third largest employer in the country, employing about 400,000 people. They accept that their duties involve the keeping of Post Office rules and regulations, and the giving of a reliable and courteous service to the public. They realise that being public servants they are not immune from criticism,

even if the late delivery of mail is due to misdirection, and so on.
I begin to wonder whether hon. Members in this House, and people outside, know that organised labour within the Post Office is attached to no fewer than 22 different organisations and is not, as some people seem to think, based on the two major trade unions which are associated or connected with it. I claim that talks such as I have had with representatives of these various organisations assist in removing the kind of suspicion that is detrimental to the services, but I must inform the Committee that what happened in regard to the postal dispute under the previous Administration still weighs heavy in certain quarters throughout the industry. I want to eliminate this type of bitterness and get back to the position where one person can trust the other, and it is to this end that my right hon. Friend and I have been working. I know that both he and I have been criticised for not being tougher in our approach. Let me tell hon. Members that we do not run away from such criticisms. It is nice to know what the other chap is thinking. But let me say to those individuals who take that line that I am content to adopt this approach and restore confidence in those who are engaged in these services, if that is what is needed.
I have always held the view that if we are to have good staff relations, they will not be achieved by working from a text book. The man on the shop floor has not the time available to him, and nor have others who are not engaged in this type of work. If good staff relations are wanted, they must start from the ground floor and not from the top, and good working conditions are a contributory factor to good staff relations.
I see that time is limited, and I am going to pass on now and say something about postal recruitment. Since last October, I have answered a great many questions in the House and replied to many letters from hon. Members about failures in the postal service. It is quite clear to me that one of the fundamental reasons for these failures is the severe shortage of postmen at a good many of our key offices. At those offices, high overtime is worked, but there is a limit to it, and it is not always possible to staff duties adequately to ensure the


quality of service that we want to give to the public.
As one would expect, it is in areas of full employment—in Greater London, many parts of the home counties and the Midlands—that our difficulties are at their worst. Here, we are faced with keen competition from other industries. However, we are taking positive and, we hope, effective steps to get our full share of the available labour, but it must be understood that this is not an easy market to tap, especially for the type of person we want for the services involved. But I must emphasise that it is at these main centres that we have been finding the greatest difficulty in recruiting for our postal services.
We are therefore tightening up on our methods of recruitment to bring them to the maximum efficiency, and we are embarking on extensive advertising. This week, we started a television advertising campaign on the London and Midland I.T.V. transmissions and we are ready to deal promptly with the large number of inquiries which we expect to receive. A new recruitment centre, supplementing the existing one, was opened at Camel-ford House in London last week.
As a further measure, and with the co-operation of the Union of Post Office Workers, we are extending the recruitment of temporary postwomen and of part-time staff.
I am pleased to tell the House that the response to advertising has been most encouraging and that the first batch of new recruits in the Inner London Area has already reported for training. It has to be understood and appreciated that, as new housing areas are developed and old terraced housing pulled down, more men are required, involving increased costs to the Department without a great increase in traffic. These are important factors that have to be borne in mind and measured against the position of 20 years ago.
I do not try to disguise the fact that it is bound to take some time to restore our postman complement to a proper level in London and in some other towns, but I am convinced that, in co-operation with the staff, we are now moving in the right direction to solve the problem.
One has a similar problem in the recruitment of telephonists in these full employment areas. Hon. Members will appreciate that the competition for women staff of the kind needed for telephone operating is extremely keen. In particular, we have been concerned by the standard of service at the Continental Exchange, which is below that which we aim to give. I am pleased to tell hon. Members that we are taking measures to deal with this. An extensive drive has been made to get recruits and to attract school leavers this summer, and I hope that we will be successful in attracting young people into the service and so build up the Department in this way.
Last week I was privileged to open a new language laboratory of the latest type at Wren House, and I urge hon. Members to go there and see what is taking place. It is designed to speed up the training in French of those telephonists whose knowledge of French on recruitment is not up to the required standard.
In addition to this, a reorganisation of the Continental service is in hand, including provision for greater use of English in overseas operating. This will enable a much greater proportion of the work to be done by non-linguists who are easier to recruit. I expect that these measures taken together will lead to a considerable improvement in the service before long. An extension of international subscriber dialling will, in the longer term, even further improve the situation.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: rose—

Mr. Slater: I do not have time to give way. I must get on so that other hon. Members can have an opportunity to speak.
Hon. Members have frequently raised the problem of telephone kiosks. The Post Office is continually being asked to provide more call offices, particularly in rural areas and on new housing estates. We have 75,000 call offices, a very good record, and we are continuing to provide them, although they made a loss of £4½ million in 1963–64. The loss is increasing, and it is for this very good reason that when my right hon. Friend and I are asked to provide a new call office we have to pay careful attention


to the likely use to be made of it and whether there is an alternative within reasonable walking distance. It is not hard-heartedness on our part, but sound commonsense.
Furthermore, in rural areas where kiosks are largely unremunerative, we nevertheless provide them outside each post office and telephone exchange. In addition, we have an allocation scheme which provides a sum of money to be spent on the provision of kiosks at sites recommended by the Rural District Councils' Association. Over the last 15 years that the scheme has been in operation the Post Office has provided no fewer than 6,000 rural kiosks at a capital cost of more than £1 million. The allocation of the past 2½ years has provided some 250 kiosks and we propose to carry on with this provision.
Hon. Members have frequently referred to vandalism to kiosks and I have frequently been asked Questions about this subject. Places like Liverpool and Glasgow immediately spring to mind. I must inform hon. Members that we try to make such damaged kiosks available for emergency communications even if we cannot immediately repair them completely. However, this is a considerable problem. During the first quarter of this year no fewer than 19,000 kiosks were wilfully damaged, some more than once, and the direct cost of repairs alone reached the figure of £45,000.
We are taking firm measures to counter the problem, but hon. Members will appreciate that we cannot reveal details. However, I would like to say, as I have said previously, that this is a problem to be tackled not only by the Post Office but by the local authorities, the police and every citizen.
Representations have been made to my right hon. Friend to grant concessions over telephone charges and other such matters for old-age pensioners. The Government's view is that the right way to tackle this and similar problems is to provide adequate money resources for a household and leave people the freedom of choice of their own expenditure They may not want a telephone. Many of us can remember what happened about the tobacco concession. However, we are in discussion with other Government Depart-

ments and a number of voluntary bodies and with our Post Office Engineering Union to help us assess any real specific requirements which there might be. If it emerges that there is a low cost communication facility which the Post Office could develop, we shall certainly see what we can do. In the meantime, I would commend to hon. Members an excellent booklet published by the National Council of Social Services.
I have endeavoured to gallop through what I have to say in order to give other hon. Members an opportunity to make short contributions. I have attempted to deal in short detail with recruitment in regard to the basic services—posts and telecommunications—the provision of kiosks and concessions to the aged. These are a few of the matters which concern the Post Office. Late delivery of mail, parcel transit and other problems are earnestly being tackled. I have no doubt that, as the debate proceeds, other items will be referred to. Neither my right hon. Friend nor I would claim that we have all the answers to the problems which could arise in the services of the Post Office—

Mr. Gresham Cooke: rose—

Mr. Slater: —nor do I think—

Mr. Gresham Cooke: rose—

Hon. Members: Order.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Jennings): If the Assistant Postmaster-General does not give way, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) must not persist.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: On a point of order. We are in Committee. May I not ask a simple question, and that is, what about recruiting—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. It is sharp practice to try to get the question across. I must insist that if the hon. Gentleman who is on his feet does not give way no other hon. Gentleman should persist in interrupting.

Mr. Slater: It is not that I wanted to be discourteous to the hon. Member for Twickenham, but I made it clear that this is such a short debate that I wanted to give other hon. Members an opportunity to make short contributions.
I will not claim that we have all the answers about services of the Post Office. I do not think that management in any other type of major industry has, either. To make such a claim would be ridiculous, to say the least. However, my right hon. Friend and I shall accept the criticisms which may be directed against us, if such criticisms are justified. What we shall not accept is criticism which is biassed against the Post Office as such. This is a great organisation. It seeks to give services to the general public on many fronts. Suggestions made in the debate to improve these services will be carefully considered. In that way, we may advance towards eliminating much of the ill-informed criticism which has been directed against the Post Office as such.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. Rafton Pounder: I shall not detain the Committee for more than a few moments. There are just three points which I wish to raise. The first is of a general nature, in that it covers the whole nation; the other two are slightly more specific and relate primarily to Northern Ireland.
My general point concerns something which I think the Post Office introduced in Northern Ireland about three years ago, a classified telephone directory. I do not know how widely this has been extended throughout the other regions of the United Kingdom but this is of considerable importance. [AN HON. MEMBER: "London has one."] There is none which relates to London, certainly none which I have been able to find. This does not apply over the whole country and I hope that steps on this—[AN HON. MEMBER: "It does apply."]—It does not. I have gone to a certain amount of trouble to find out about this. Are there insuperable obstacles to its being extended to those areas where it does not apply?
The second point relates to something which causes a great deal of irritation, particularly to companies which still use the parcel post service to a considerable extent. It is the delays which are occurring in this service, particularly between Northern Ireland and the Midlands. I gather that these delays do not primarily arise from activities at the Belfast end. My visits to the General Post Office there have shown that time with-

out number loads of parcels take three or four days after the date of stamping before they arrive in Northern Ireland. This, therefore, implies that loads of parcels are ending up in a siding somewhere in the Midlands.
I hope that something can be done to accelerate the delivery of parcels because a great number of companies—and I am thinking particularly of companies which send small articles of high value—use this service. These delays are a great handicap to them and I hope that the Postmaster-General will comment on this matter when he replies to the debate.
My third point concerns a matter about which I have written to the right hon. Gentleman recently. It also relates to Northern Ireland but this time to the subscriber trunk dialling system. I am told that there seems to be a clogging from London when dialling the letters OA, OB or OC. There seems to be particular difficulty with the second letter of a three-letter code where this is one of the first three letters of the alphabet.
Although in the last few days there has been an 11 per cent. increase in the number of lines available between Belfast and London, difficulty does still exist in STD dialling, particularly when dialling the letters OB. The service was introduced some years ago and is indeed an excellent idea. Businessmen and others were encouraged to use facilities which, frankly, were not up to the appropriate requirement at the time. If one is encouraging people to do something, adequate facilities should be available for them to do it.
I have been conducting some tests in the last few days and, while I accept that there has been a substantial improvement as between Belfast and London, there is still a severe shortage of lines between Northern Ireland and the Midlands. For an industrial community such as ours it is most important that businessmen have adequate facilities for making business telephone calls.
I realise that several of my hon. Friends wish to take part in this discussion. While I should like to make some further observations I will restrict my remarks to those three points and should be obliged if the Postmaster-General would comment on them.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. Harry Randall: The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) has done a service to the Committee by speaking briefly. The points he raised are of close concern to his constituents and I am sure that they will be pleased that he has drawn them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General. I will attempt to emulate his brevity and, though my remarks may take slightly longer than his I will resume my seat as quickly as possible.
While some of us enjoyed the speech of the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), including his flights of fancy, the enjoyment was really secondhand because his comments appeared in the Sunday Telegraph only a few weekends ago. Had he departed from the remarks he made his speech would have been more enjoyable. In any case, what was happening when he was the Postmaster-General for three years? Why were these great ideas not put into practice?

Mr. Marples: rose—

Mr. Randall: I will not give way. Time is short and many hon. Members wish to speak.

Mr. Marples: The hon. Gentleman should not ask me questions if he will not allow me to answer them.

Mr. Randall: The right hon. Gentleman was for three years the Postmaster-General and was in the Cabinet for most of the 13 years of Tory rule. Why did we not hear some of these ideas then? I am not asking the right hon. Gentleman to answer these questions but merely reminding the Committee that he had every opportunity of putting these ideas into practice when he was in office. He did not do so. Neither did his colleague Mr. Bevins.
The present atmosphere surrounding the Post Office is quite unreal, and the constant criticism levelled at it is completely unjustified in the light of what my right hon. Friend has been doing in the last eight or 10 months. I do not say that the services have not deteriorated. The right hon. Gentleman said that they have been deteriorating for years, and they have. They were deteriorating when he was there, and when Mr. Bevins was

there, but against the background of what my right hon. Friend has been doing I say again that the present criticisms are unjustified.
In a debate in March my right hon. Friend spoke of some of the things he had been doing. For instance, there is no one in this Committee who does not realise the need for better staff relations. Many of us still remember 16th July, 1964. We know of the struggle that went on, and of the disappointments. Some of us who had been in the Post Office for years were dismayed by the industrial strife, and the work-to-rule. As a result of hard work on the part of some, the then Postmaster-General, Mr. Bevins agreed to a 6½ per cent. increase, and to stand by the award of the pay research unit.
I have recently had the feeling that some hon. Members opposite think that the postmen were then treated too generously—

Mr. Peter Bessell: indicated dissent.

Mr. Randall: I am not necessarily looking at the Liberal Party when I say that. The postmen were not treated too generously. The pay research unit established beyond doubt that they had been well behind for years. I am glad that when the unit reported, my right hon. Friend did not hesitate to see that the postmen got their due.
As a result, something else happened in staff relations. Many hon. Members keep urging that restrictive practices should be done away with—particularly restrictive practices on the part of the workers and the trade unions. For years there was part-time labour in the Post Office, and I was one of those who opposed it. When, after a great struggle, we abolished it, we said, "Never again". But, because of manpower problems, my right hon. Friend had to ask the postmen to make a contribution in this respect, and they have agreed to the employment, for a time, of part-time postmen and postwomen. That is the kind of improvement in staff relations that has resulted from the efforts of my right hon. Friend, and of the Assistant Postmaster-General, who has done an exceedingly good job.
I am glad to know that the Post Office is to take advantage of modern industrial building methods. This is urgently needed, because my right hon. Friend says that he will be active in the introduction of mechanisation. In one of his first speeches as Postmaster-General, the right hon. Member for Wallasey, told us about everything that was coming from Dollis Hill, and the wonderful things that were to be developed, but when he gave up his position Post Office mechanisation was still a long way off. Since my right hon. Friend was appointed he has taken action in many ways. Standard coding is just one part of what is going on. What is now happening is lively and interesting. It is against that background that I affirm that this criticism of the Post Office is completely unjustified. I am not saying that the services ought not to be improved; they certainly should, but the steps taken by my right hon. Friend give an indication of what is happening.
The telephone service is in great trouble, not through the fault of my right hon. Friend but because of inadequate investment over the years. The right hon. Member for Wallasey spoke about separating telephones from the rest of the service, but how were the telephones financed originally? It was by the postal side. The profits of the postal side may not be so great now but originally they subsidised telephones. For faults experienced and the fact that maintenance does not go on we can lay much of the blame at the door of the previous Government, because youth training was stopped.
There is a lively interest in the Post Office at present. I can say this because I come from the Post Office service. I have never known such a great interest taken in it. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for amending and remoulding staff relations. The greatest contribution which a Postmaster-General can make is to get the co-operation of the staff. There are about 170,000 Post Office workers. When we can get their full co-operation things will begin to move. My right hon. Friend is doing the job which he ought to do. If a Division is pressed by hon. Members opposite against the Government tonight, I shall be very glad to vote against the Opposition.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Peter Bessell: The right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) elaborated at some length upon a very good article which he published in the Sunday Telegraph a few weeks ago. I was glad to hear him elaborating some of the useful and constructive suggestions he made in that article. He ranged over a wide field of development which I am sure he would be the first to admit would take many years to carry out.
I shall try to apply my mind in this speech to the immediate problems confronting the Postmaster-General and to suggest some of the things which in my view need urgent attention. There is one point which the right hon. Member for Wallasey brought out in his speech which is of paramount importance—that the present set-up is bad. This is well illustrated by the inheritance which the Postmaster-General took upon himself when he took office. He inherited what is still, despite many deficiencies, one of the best postal services as to letters and small packages in the world, but also what is fast becoming one of the worst telephone systems in the Western world, one which compares very unfavourably with that of the United States and certain Western European countries.
The Postmaster-General also inherited—perhaps his worst difficulty—50 years of under-capitalisation. That has created many of the problems confronting the service in all its aspects. He also inherited a great deal of discontent and unrest among the employees. I believe they were justified in much of the discontent they have expressed over recent years. I hope that the Postmaster-General and the present Government will do everything they can to create a far better relationship between members of the industry, the Government and the general public. The right hon. Gentleman has inherited a radio and television service over which he has very little real control. I have always considered it a curious situation that the Postmaster-General should be responsible for something over which he has a minimal amount of control and is unable to put into effect many of the ideas he might wish to see established.
All this does not mean that nothing can be done or achieved. It does not necessarily mean that the Minister has


his priorities right in all things. I was a little disturbed when listening to the Assistant Postmaster-General, because I felt he was complacent about the things which have been achieved so far. I do not hesitate to say that some of those achievements are striking. Nevertheless there was a note of complacency which worried me. I hope that the Postmaster-General replying to some questions which I shall briefly put will be able to allay my fears.
This debate is essential. The Post Office services are not only vital to the whole health of the national economy but the Post Office is one of our largest industries and in many ways our most powerful single industry. A Post Office go-slow or a stoppage can wreck or cause havoc to industry, commerce, business and even the public safety in certain aspects. It is, therefore, right that we should spend time on this debate. It is a matter of regret to me that we have not longer in which to discuss this vital service in all its aspects. I am glad that hon. Members on both sides have sought to make the debate as constructive as possible and not merely political. That is my aim, too.
First, postal services. Despite the efficiencies to which I have referred, there are, nevertheless, yawning gaps in the service. In particular, I am concerned about the delays in matters of letter delivery and small parcels delivery in rural and remote areas. Over the last few years this has tended to become worse and there has been little sign of any marked improvement. I refer particularly to the Highlands of Scotland. I have a whole sheaf of letters here, many of which I should like to have referred to if there had been time, which have been received by my hon. Friends who represent the Highlands of Scotland from their constituents who feel that they are not able to depend upon the postal services. This is causing great concern to them and to anyone who hopes to spread industry and general development to that part of the nation.
There is, too, a failure very often on the part of the Post Office to give quick satisfaction in matters of compensation. I have had one or two examples of this in the short period that I have been in the House. Constituents have brought

very genuine problems to me. Although these have been satisfactorily settled in the end, the delays have sometimes been inordinate and unnecessary. Therefore, I ask the Postmaster-General to undertake at least to review the position of the postal services in the remote and rural areas and to see whether he can effect any improvements, particularly bearing in mind that recent rail closures have frequently caused added difficulties to the postal services in those areas and therefore the problem is likely to become more acute. In areas like this, where the Government have promised us regional development, the matter of postal services becomes even more urgent.
I feel particularly strongly on the subject of the telephone services, because it seems that I can never pick up a telephone and dial the operator without getting either a rude answer or a wrong number. My experiences in this have been particularly unfortunate, but I believe that they are shared by many hon. Members on both sides. The basic problem is the attitude of operators. I was interested to hear of the success which has been achieved in the recruiting programmes. I congratulate the Minister upon it. I ask him to pay particular attention to the training of operators so as to ensure that they realise that they must give a very special and often a very peculiar service to the public and that courtesy will often go a long way to make people appreciative of a service which is otherwise difficult for them to give and for the public to receive.
I believe that one of the reasons why the telephone service is used so extensively in the United States as against the postal service is not just because their postal service is bad and their telephone service is good, but because their telephone service is so very good that people prefer to use it rather than the postal service. If this could be achieved in this country, it might add considerably to the revenue which the Post Office would receive from the telephone service.
That brings me to a few brief words about the work which is carried out in the House by the members of the Post Office staff who serve us all here so very well. I could elaborate on this, but I will merely say this to the Postmaster-General. I believe that the service which hon. and right hon. Members receive from the


operatives here is unique. Not only do they have to be men of outstanding ability, they have to be trustworthy and their discretion has to be absolute. They are not receiving the best reward possible for their services and I hope that many of the problems which confront them will be seriously investigated by the Postmaster-General and that something will be done to improve their general conditions of service.
Finally, I should like to know what is to happen in the future about the kind of training which staff will have when they are recruited for the telephone service. This is important. Unless we have not only the right staff but the right training for them we shall continue to have inefficient service and this will continue to cause annoyance not only to ourselves but to people from other parts of the world who seek to reach us by means of the telephone. What proposals are there to raise the additional capital likely to be needed in the years ahead? I hope that the Postmaster-General gives priority to the improvement of existing services rather than the expansion of services. I would be far happier to feel that existing subscribers had a better service than that the waiting list should be met and more equipment installed than the staff is capable of handling.
I have the greatest sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties. I have a great personal admiration for him and I hope that he will be able to deal with these difficulties in the years ahead in a way which I am sure he is more than capable of doing. I hope that he will be able to answer positively some of my questions. I said that I wanted this debate to be constructive, as I believe we all do. On many of the right hon. Gentleman's answers will depend the way in which we shall vote in the Division later on.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. David Gibson-Watt: I beg to move, That Item Class 1, Vote 6 (Post Office Ministers), be reduced by £1,000.
It is an arrant shame that the debate has to be cut short. Many hon. Members on both sides who wished to put points about the service have been unable to do so. It is my intention to take certainly no more than half the time left and probably even less than that. My

right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) who opened the debate needs no words from me to remind the Committee of what he did for the Post Office. Some hon. Members opposite in their remarks seemed to forget that it was my right hon. Friend who got rid of Treasury control of the Post Office. I am sure that the hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Randall), who is always the fairest of speakers in Post Office debates, will agree with me when I say that.

Mr. Randall: We still have it.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: My right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey was famous for his slogans during his career and I am sure that no one present will deny the saying that "Marples is modern". It is modernity that the Post Office requires. It is modernity and a forward look that my right hon. Friend asked for in this debate. The Assistant Postmaster-General told us certain things about the Post Office, but I cannot say that he answered in any way the case which my right hon. Friend put forward. I can only hope that the Postmaster-General will do so when he winds up the debate.
A great deal has been said about the Post Office in the course of the debate and much has been said concerning complaints about the letter post, the parcel post and the telephones. All these were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) and by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell). We are aware of the growing difficulty of the problem facing the Post Office, but, at the same time, we know more and more, through our constituency post, of the questions and complaints which are made.

Mr. Benn: indicated assent.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I see the Postmaster-General nods his head. He, above all, should know the problem which is there, in spite of the efforts which have been made and in spite of the courtesy of telephone operators and other Post Office servants. Incidentally, I thought that the hon. Member for Bodmin generalised rather when referring to the courtesy of telephone operators. In my experience it is the exception rather than the reverse to come across a "scratchy" one, and I have praise particularly for many of the night operators.
As my right hon. Friend said, we must consider carefully how the Post Office is to be controlled and administered in the future. With an organisation as big as this, employing about 400,000 people and with a turnover of well over £600 million a year, it is high time that the Government of the day and Parliament itself considered splitting up the Post Office. My right hon. Friend referred to the strong case for separating the telephone service from the rest of it, under, as he suggested, a public utility company with a full-time chairman. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will address his mind to this in answering the debate tonight.
From my experience of talking to people in responsible positions in the Post Office, I am certain that not enough responsibility is given to the head postmaster in his area. The work and staff returns still have to be made out every week. Are they really necessary? Are the work and staff returns which are sent into regional headquarters ever looked at or are they really pigeonholed? Is this system, which has been going on now for over 50 years, a sensible system in 1965? There is a case for giving these men, who in many cases are responsible for arranging and paying wage bills of between £7 million and £20 million a year, the maximum responsibility. This could be done under the sort of system which my right hon. Friend suggested.
The Postmaster-General has not quite so many questions to answer as he might have had if we had had a full debate. We have not launched into the question of stamps. We have had exchanges about this in the past, both with regard to the inability of the Post Office to produce stamps in time for the rise in letter post rates and also with regard to the most incompetent delays over commemorative stamps. But this question the right hon. Gentleman must answer: is he prepared to re-examine the monolithic structure of the Post Office as it is today? Does he agree that we must have change? Does he agree that management leadership is a fundamental necessity in running this service? However automated the Post Office becomes, the human factor will remain.
It was said that in the British Army there were no good battalions and no bad

battalions, no good regiments and no bad regiments, but that there were only good and bad officers. The same applies to the Post Office today, with a body of men, 400,000 of them, the equivalent of over 40 divisions in the British Army. They must be broken down, and management leadership must play a great part.
The right hon. Gentleman's statement yesterday about the giro system will lead to a further enlargement of the Post Office. We had an excellent debate until the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) came in. I gave him warning that I would refer to him tonight, and he has not taken the opportunity to come here. It is of interest that during that debate, in which the statement about the giro was made by the Postmaster-General, the hon. Member for Buckingham came in and, having interrupted rather at length long before the statement was made, threw across both to me and to the right hon. Gentleman an example of his own Press hand-outs. The hon. Gentleman produced this paper which no doubt other hon. Members have seen. It is headed:
The Commonwealth and International Library of Science Technology Engineering and Liberal Studies, Publisher, Robert Maxwell, M.C.
The first paragraph of it says:
The Postmaster-General, Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn, is expected to announce later today the Government's acceptance in principle of the giro credit transfer system.
How long is it since we have had hon. Members on the Government side dishing out Press releases 10 minutes before the Minister gets up to tell us what we had already been told in this very interesting document? How long shall we have to put up with hon. Members opposite treating the House of Commons in this way, like somebody handing out racing tips in the silver ring? I thought that that was the prerogative of the right hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), but it seems that that is not so. I take the greatest exception to this.
I ask the Postmaster-General whether he entirely dissociates himself from the handout.

Mr. Benn: indicated assent.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman nods his head and dissociates himself entirely from what the hon. Member for Buckingham did


yesterday. As he has dissociated himself, I will throw away that part of my speech which made further reference to this document. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
I promised the Postmaster-General that I would give him plenty of time to reply and therefore I come to the concluding part of my speech. As I have said, many hon. Members on this side of the House wished to put points to him, but I hope that it is clear from the speeches which have been made that we are concerned about the way in which Post Office matters are going. The right hon. Gentleman may be the 95th Postmaster-General, but he has been in charge of Post Office affairs for over nine months and he must now be in a position to tell us his views on the future of the services. He came to his office full of bright confidence. He has since tended to give us the impression of hesitation and possibly doubt, not knowing whether he was in the Crypt or on the roof. I am sure that he will forgive that remark.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will answer the case put so well by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey. Is he prepared to take a big view of the future of the Post Office? Is he, in the words of my right hon. Friend, capable of working himself out of a job? We look on the work of the Post Office, complicated and difficult as it is, with the greatest interest. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to face squarely the questions which we have put to him and to answer his critics in the House tonight.

9.35 p.m.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): I am glad that the problem of the reduction of my salary has been sorted out. Were the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) and his hon. Friends to win tonight, there would be many cheers from the Prices and Incomes Board, even though not on this side of the House.
First, I should like to say how much I appreciate and am grateful to the Opposition for the opportunity of this debate on the Post Office services. Many points have been raised. The Post Office is going through a period of rapid change. What it does affects the public at every

point. Its internal structure and its new activities are all of great importance. For my part, there cannot be too many debates about it or too many opportunities to discuss the future of the Post Office.
A number of issues have been raised, and I think that it will be convenient for the Committee if I divide my reply into three parts: first, the postal side; secondly, telephones; and thirdly, the issues of organisation which the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) with great skill raised in his speech. First, the postal issues. To reply to some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder), who spoke about classified directories, we have new tenders out and have very much in mind the extension of classified sections in telephone directories which everybody knows can be of great convenience. On the parcels problem, which has been serious, the new agreement with British Rail which was signed in January gives us the power, if the railways fail us, to take back the control of parcels and to surcharge the railways for it. We believe that this new agreement, which, incidentally, saves us £4 million a year, will also be some guarantee of a better service. The railways are genuinely trying to improve the service which they give us. I will deal with S.T.D., to which the hon. Member for Belfast, South also referred, when dealing with telephones.
I should like to express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Randall), who speaks with great authority on the subject of the Post Office, and to underline what he said. However many criticisms there may be of Post Office services, I hope that nobody will carry them to the point when they become too personal and destroy the morale of the postal staff. I had a letter from someone the other day which was so offensive about postal staff—the "hired yokels", as he called them—because, as far as I remember, he had failed to pay his bill and his telephone had been cut off, that I felt it impossible to reply to the letter in the terms in which it was written. I urge critics to try as far as possible to recognise that the difficulties are difficulties that in many cases affect the postal staff even more than they themselves.
The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) raised a number of points and


made a welcome speech. With regard to the rural and remote areas, I will, of course, look at any points that the hon. Member raises. I stress, however, that the new regional boards and councils set up by my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State provide the first opportunity ever for our regional directors to keep in touch with the new regional boards and authorities. It is our intention that the closest relationship should be developed between our regional directors and those who are concerned with the vitality of the regions. In the long run, this is probably the best guarantee that local postal services will be maintained at a high standard.
I understood what the hon. Member said about the difficulties of the telephone service, but I do not share his view that the operators were discourteous. My experience over a very long time as a telephone user has been of the greatest courtesy from operators. The right hon. Member for Wallasey, when Postmaster-General, introduced the "friendly telephone" service, which built upon an existing situation and helped to get it understood by the public as a whole.
I move from those individual points to some of the general problems that confront us in the Post Office. First, the postal side. There is no point in going again all over the controversies that we had about the postal tariffs, although these occupied a great deal of my time for my first few months in office. We have dealt now with the deficit by an increase in tariffs which are greatly regretted but inevitable. The right hon. Gentleman had the same problem and he raised the tariffs in 1957 by £42 million a year on posts and telephones—an even higher increase than I have had to make myself.
The second problem was in terms of staff relations. We had had the first postal strike this century, and one of the real difficulties of getting a new atmosphere in those first few months was that we were all awaiting the postmen's pay settlement. This was something which cost the Post Office a great deal of money. It was criticised at the time by some people who thought it was unjust, but in my view it was a fair and just settlement. It was based on the Priestley Royal Commission recommendation of a fair comparison

which the right hon. Gentleman himself accepted and it was based on the Armitage Committee Report on the Pay of Postmen and the special Pay Research Unit set up by Mr. Bevins at the time of the interim settlement last July. Over 10 years, from 1957 to 1966, postmen's pay will only have increased 4 per cent. a year, over the whole 10-year period, or by just under 5 per cent. if we include hours. If the percentage looked high then, it looked high just because postmen's pay had fallen that much behind that of those outside the Post Office. These were the first jobs which had to be tackled—the problem of the deficit, which was a very serious one, and the problem of justice to postmen and a new start in staff relations.
What else have we done? Let me very briefly report to the Committee. First of all the consultants whom I have engaged are not only concerned with the sort of problem which consultants deal with at what I might call the shop floor level. I have deliberately given the consultants completely free terms of reference and I am hoping and intending that they will extend their inquiries right to the upper management structure of the Post Office and in this they will have the support of the Department itself. Indeed, if they extend the inquiry to the relations between the Post Office and the Government I shall be very interested to hear the results of it, and that is part of the answer to the right hon. Gentleman and I make it at the beginning of my remarks.
Secondly we have established the giro service—or have decided to establish it after yesterday's debate, and it is a notable development in the Post Office services. I was delighted it was so warmly welcomed in the House yesterday, and I believe that this in future will be seen to be a real extension of Post Office services.
We have also established a users' council. I read about it. The right hon. Gentleman talked about it in 1957, but when I came to the Post Office there was no users' council in existence. We have also established a consultancy service to help British manufacturers benefit from our good relations with foreign administrations to get their goods and equipment abroad. The right hon. Gentleman talked about this when he


was in office but it was not set up till this Government came into office.
We have now carried standardisation into effect. We have specified the date after which non-standard envelopes will attract a higher tariff. The right hon. Gentleman talked about that when he was Postmaster-General, but the decision was taken this year. We have decided to go ahead with national coding. The right hon. Gentleman talked about this when he was in office, and national coding is now to be introduced. Indeed, we have appointed a consultant to cover the whole field of design and this is following on and extending and developing the design interest which the right hon. Gentleman had.
He talked about postal uniforms. It was one of the first things I asked about, because I had read about and heard about postal uniforms—but the right hon. Gentleman is the only postman who has ever worn it.

Mr. Marples: No.

Mr. Benn: Well, not quite.

Mr. Marples: Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw that?

Mr. Benn: Yes, I will, for two reasons, first of all because the right hon. Gentleman is not a postman, and also because this was seven years ago and the postmen are still wearing the serge uniform. I hope I shall be in order if I quote from what his predecessor, Lord Hill, had to say about him in his book, where he compared him with Ernest Bevin, a very formidable comparison:
It was said of Ernest Bevin that he released a large number of hares and left it to others to chase them. Not so our Ernest. He releases more hares and, pausing only to issue regular Press notices, personally pursues them hot foot … until at least some of them are brought to book—or to the pages of a newspaper.
If I were a dishonest man I should stop there, but I shall go on to say what he says later:
I know of no one with greater vigour and drive mentally and physically.
That shows how fair I want to be to the right hon. Gentleman, but he had better wait for it, because there is a little more coming.
Those are some of the things that we have done, but the fundamental problem of the postal services remains. I

have complained that Mr. Bevins denied the public knowledge of the long-term financial prospects, but when I publish the annual accounts in a matter of a week or two the long-term financial prospects will be available, and the House will see, and it will not surprise anyone who knows about the Post Office, that the financial prospects on the postal side continue to be very difficult indeed, with a widening gap over the next five years.
This poses a choice for the public. That is why we need to debate Post Office matters more. It is a choice posed by the right hon. Gentleman in one of his annual reports, between the maintenance of the present service at higher cost, or some other type of service. This is something which has to be seen by the public. It is a decision which has to be reached in the end by the public, and it also involves very big manpower considerations for the community as a whole.
The more I reflect on postal problems, the more I think it wrong to hurry into a solution based on short-term financial expedients, because we are about to build machinery for new mechanisation and new buildings to hold it which will last until the end of the century. It seems to me that we have to begin thinking 30 years ahead on the postal side, and on telephones as well. We have to think of what sort of postal services people will need. Moreover, we have to think of what sort of facilities in terms of transport will be available at the end of the century, what road and rail networks there will be, what telephone penetration there will be, what telex penetration there will be, and then we have to ask, what is the optimum scale of the mechanisation that we intend to introduce?
Anyone who knows anything about computers and automation knows that the greatest mistake of all is to automate what one does instead of taking the opportunity at the moment of automation to allow the optimum scale of automation to condition one's whole organisation and its pattern of services. This is what Sir Leon Bagrit emphasised in his Reith lectures. This is what we have to do if we are to make a success of the short-term decisions on the postal side.
Now I move to telecommunications, and here the problems are different.


Some of the irritations felt by the public have been expressed tonight, but they are not new. I have here a survey of the telephone service in London. It shows that 2,536 people were asked what they thought of the service, and that 1,305 were dissatisfied. That was in 1898, when telephones were under private enterprise. This information is in a memorandum submitted by my grandfather on behalf of the London County Council to a Select Committee of the House of Commons. The report says:
We have again complained of our telephone which is out of order as usual. We cannot put any dependence whatever upon this.
That was the National Telephone Company which then ran the London telephone service, and the fact is that the problems of the telephone service are not to do with who runs it, but to the extent of under-capitalisation.
This is the basic problem, and in December, 1957, the right hon. Gentleman said that they had charted telephone policy for 10 years ahead. The right hon. Gentleman was full of confidence. In October, 1963, when the White Paper "The Telephone in an Expanding Economy" was published, a promise was made to abolish the waiting list by March, 1966. But what did I find when I came into office? I found that on the basis of the existing capital programme, waiting lists, far from being likely to be diminished by 1966, would rise from 50,000 to 300,000 by 1969. I discovered that the forecasts for demands that had been made had been exceeded over the 18 months period—the difference between March 1963 and today—by 37 per cent. The estimate of the demand for calls as between October, 1963, and today was exceeded by 50 per cent. The number of faults was rising. As a matter of fact it is still lower than 30 years ago, so the Telephone Users' Association is wrong about that.
The truth is that the service is suffering from under-capitalisation. People talk about the American telephone service as being wonderful, but why is it wonderful? Does anyone know how much is spent there? Betwen 1952 and 1963, the Bell system spent £9,410 million on telephone investment. Over the same period, the Post Office spent £1,105 million. The

Bell system spent in one year, 1963, more than the Post Office over the whole 11-year period.
The fact is that throughout the period when the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were in charge of the Post Office, the British telephone service fell, both relatively and absolutely, further behind the Americans, the Canadians, the Swedes and a number of other advanced societies.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: Rents?

Mr. Benn: As far as rents are concerned, the party opposite raised the rental and connection charges by 149 per cent. But the right hon. Gentleman himself enjoys a special consideration, because he was the only Postmaster-General of the four who actually cut the telephone investment programme during his period in office. I know it was not his fault. He was the victim of stop and go. But he goes down as the one man who thought that the telephone investment programme could be cut, and, whoever else might accuse us of difficulties, it does not fall to the right hon. Gentleman to point a finger in our direction.
At any rate, those are the basic problems, and we are doing our best. I have made a number of speeches about the telephone service, and I do not need to repeat them any further; but for reasons I have given I engaged consultants to see whether there is anything we can do to improve our estimation of demand, and they might decide our system was best.
We have established a Director of Statistics and Business Research. We have established a Director of Computer Services. We have a new capital programme in an advanced stage of preparation, and there is a period of fast growth ahead—faster than ever before. But I must warn the Committee that the limitations are not money from the market. They are the capacity of the industry to meet our needs for equipment, the time it takes to get sites, the time it takes to get buldings put up, and the skilled manpower required.
Those are the problems, and they make it possible that the telephone service may get worse before it gets better. If that is so, it will be because of the consistent under-capitalisation from which it has suffered over the past 40 years.
Finally, I come to the point that the hon. Gentleman made in his article in the Sunday Telegraph, which I read with great interest, and in his speech tonight. I refer to the organisation of the Post Office: does it need a new look? I would accept entirely that new technology puts a strain upon old structures as well as old methods of doing things. It is absolutely right that from time to time one should ask oneself whether a new situation creates the need for a new look at one's own organisation, and that is one reason why I invited McKinsey organisation to look wherever it liked in an effort to find a solution to our difficulties.
However, it is a very old issue; it is in fact two issues. One of them is, is the Post Office too closely connected with the political life of the country to be able to do its job properly? That was the argument raised by the right hon. Gentleman when he said that I should work myself out of a job, and it goes right back to Rowland Hill. When he retired in 1864, he said that in his opinion the Postmaster-General ought to be permanently appointed, so it is not a new idea. It is 101 years old. In 1902, Sir Austen Chamberlain, later to become Postmaster-General, deplored accountability in day-to-day matters.
The McDonnell Commission on the Civil Service in 1914 said that much of what was called red tape in the Civil Service was attributable to the fact that Ministers had to be answerable for every detail in their own Departments. In 1931, as the right hon. Gentleman said, my noble Friend Earl Attlee in the New Statesman, very soon after leaving office, said that he thought that the Post Office ought to be a nationalised industry and Lord Wolmer in his book on Post Office reform, which I have read and from which the right hon. Gentleman quoted, came to the same conclusion a year later.
What with Mr. Bevins's book and the right hon. Gentleman's speech, one has almost reached the point where one can say that all ex-Postmasters-General agree about the problem of political control of the Post Office. For my part, I do not know whether I am more embarrassed by taking the blame for what happens in the Department or getting credit for the achievements in which I have no part. Both make me rather uneasy on

occasions, but at any rate that is the way the system works.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The right hon. Gentleman is telling us much very interesting history about the Post Office, which, of course, is accurate, but will he tell us a little more of the future? What has he to say about the sensible and wide suggestions put forward by my right hon. Friend during the debate?

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman did not allow me to finish my speech. I was coming to the second issue about the future of the post and telephone.
The second point—and this goes back to 1898 and is not a new idea, for in 1898 this was the idea of a Select Committee on the telephone service—was that the telephone service should be separate. In 1922, a Select Committee recommended that there should be a separate telephone service, and the two late Postmasters-General have come to the same conclusion.
These are very big and important issues and I do not myself know the answer to them. I think that we all benefit greatly from public discussion of these issues inside and outside Parliament. Beyond that I cannot go, but I listened with keen interest to the right hon. Gentleman because of his experience of this office
I understand that there is the possibility of a Division at 10 o'clock—that is, to judge from the cohorts who are now coming in fresh from having been in the Library or meeting their constituents. The real difference between the party opposite and ourselves is in our attitudes to public service. I find it very sinister that the right hon. Gentleman should be willing for the telephone service, which is financially profitable, to be hived over to the advantage of his friends, as was done with commercial television, whereas the postal services—

Mr. Marples: indicated dissent.

Mr. Benn: —that it should be a privately-owned public utility company; that it should be transferred from public ownership—whereas the posts, which, we know, have a less profitable future, should be retained within public enterprise.
I suspect that the party opposite dislikes the idea of public enterprise. It


has had three shadow Postmasters-General since the election. There is a vacancy now; for whom I do not know; whether for the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), I do not know. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap."] But hon. Members opposite have had some difficulty filling the office of shadow Postmaster-General.

The difference between the parties is that we believe that the postal services should be strengthened and we mean to back our support in the Lobby.

Question put, That a sum, not exceeding £6,250, be granted for the said Service:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 276, Noes 295.

Division No. 261.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Dean, Paul
Hunt, John (Bromley)


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Iremonger, T. L.


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Doughty, Charles
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Astor, John
Drayson, G. B.
Johnson Smith, G. (East Grinstead)


Atkins, Humphrey
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Awdry, Daniel
Eden, Sir John
Jopling, Michael


Baker, W. H. K.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carehalton)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Balniel, Lord
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Emery, Peter
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Barlow, Sir John
Errington, Sir Eric
Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)


Batsford, Brian
Eyre, Reginald
Kershaw, Anthony


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Farr, John
Kilfedder, James A.


Bell, Ronald
Fell, Anthony
Kimball, Marcus


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Fisher, Nigel
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)
Kirk, Peter


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Foster, Sir John
Kitson, Timothy


Biffen, John
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Lagden, Godfrey


Biggs-Davison, John
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lambton, Viscount


Bingham, R. M.
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Gammans, Lady
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Black, Sir Cyril
Gardner, Edward
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Blaker, Peter
Gibson-Watt, David
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bossom, Hn. Clive
Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan
Litchfield, Capt. John


Box, Donald
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Glover, Sir Douglas
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)


Braine, Bernard
Glyn, Sir Richard
Longbottom, Charles


Brewis, John
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Longden, Gilbert


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Goodhart, Philip
Loveys, Walter H.


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Goodhew, Victor
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gower, Raymond
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Grant, Anthony
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Bryan, Paul
Grant-Ferris, R.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Gresham Cooke, R.
McMaster, Stanley


Buck, Antony
Grieve, Percy
McNair-Wilson, Patrick


Bullus, Sir Eric
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maitland, Sir John


Burden, F. A.
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Gurden, Harold
Marten, Neil


Campbell, Gordon
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mathew, Robert


Carlisle, Mark
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maude, Angus


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Cary, Sir Robert
Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)
Mawby, Ray


Channon, H. P. G.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Chataway, Christopher
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Cole, Norman
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Miscampbell, Norman


Cooke, Robert
Hastings, Stephen
Mitchell, David


Cooper, A. E.
Hawkins, Paul
Monro, Hector


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hay, John
More, Jasper


Cordle, John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Corfield, F. V.
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Costain, A. P.
Hendry, Forbes
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Higgins, Terence L.
Murton, Oscar


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Neave, Airey


Crawley, Aidan
Hirst, Geoffrey
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Crowder, F. P.
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Hopkins, Alan
Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard


Curran, Charles
Hordern, Peter
Onslow, Cranley


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hornby, Richard
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Dance, James
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Howard, Hn. G. R. (St. Ives)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)




Page, John (Harrow, W.)
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Page, R. Graham (Crosby)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Sharples, Richard
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Peel, John
Shepherd, William
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Percival, Ian
Sinclair, Sir George
Vickers, Dame Joan


Peyton, John
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Walder, David (High Peak)


Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth
Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Soames, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Wall, Patrick


Pitt, Dame Edith
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Walters, Dennis


Pounder, Rafton
Stainton, Keith
Ward, Dame Irene


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Stanley, Hn. Richard
Weatherill, Bernard


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stodart, Anthony
Webster, David


Prior, J. M. L.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Pym, Francis
Studholme, Sir Henry
Whitelaw, William


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Talbot, John E.
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wise, A. R.


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Teeling, Sir William
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Temple, John M.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Ridsdale, Julian
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)
Woodnutt, Mark


Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Conway)
Wylie, N. R.


Roots, William
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Royle, Anthony
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)



Russell, Sir Ronald
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. MacArthur and Mr. McLaren.




NOES


Abse, Leo
de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Heffer, Eric S.


Albu, Austen
Delargy, Hugh
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dell, Edmund
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Alldritt, Walter
Dempsey, James
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Holman, Percy


Atkinson, Norman
Dodds, Norman
Hooson, H. E.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Doig, Peter
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Donnelly, Desmond
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Barnett, Joel
Driberg, Tom
Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)


Beaney, Alan
Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Dunn, James A.
Howie, W.


Bence, Cyril
Dunnett, Jack
Hoy, James


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Edelman, Maurice
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bessell, Peter
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)


Binns, John
English, Michael
Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)


Bishop, E. S.
Ennals, David
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Blackburn, F.
Ensor, David
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Boardman, H.
Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)
Jackson, Colin


Boston, Terence
Fernyhough, E.
Janner, Sir Barnett


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)
Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Jeger, George (Goole)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Boyden, James
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Floud, Bernard
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Bradley, Tom
Foley, Maurice
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Ford, Ben
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Garrett, W. E.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)
Garrow, A.
Kelley, Richard


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Kenyon, Clifford


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Ginsburg, David
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Carmichael, Neil
Gourlay, Harry
Lawson, George


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Gregory, Arnold
Ledger, Ron


Chapman, Donald
Grey, Charles
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Coleman, Donald
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Conlan, Bernard
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Griffiths, Will (M'chester, Exchange)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hale, Leslie
Lipton, Marcus


Cronin, John
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Lomas, Kenneth


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Loughlin, Charles


Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Lubbock, Eric


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hannan, William
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Dalyell, Tam
Harper, Joseph
McBride, Neil


Darling, George
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McCann, J.


Davies. G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
MacColl, James


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hattersley, Roy
MacDermot, Niall


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hazell, Bert
McGuire, Michael


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mclnnes, James







McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Parkin, B. T.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Pavitt, Laurence
Stross, Sir Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Swain, Thomas


McLeavy, Frank
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Swingler, Stephen


MacMillan, Malcolm
Pentland, Norman
Symonds, J. B.


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Perry, Ernest G.
Taverne, Dick


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Prentice, R. E.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Manuel, Archie
Probert, Arthur
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Mapp, Charles
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Marsh, Richard
Randall, Harry
Thornton, Ernest


Mason, Roy
Rankin, John
Thorpe, Jeremy


Maxwell, Robert
Redhead, Edward
Tinn, James


Mayhew, Christopher
Rees, Merlyn
Tomney, Frank


Mellish, Robert
Reynolds, G. W.
Tuck, Raphael


Mendelson, J. J.
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Urwin, T. W.


Millan, Bruce
Richard, Ivor
Varley, Eric G.


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wainwright, Edwin


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Molloy, William
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Monslow, Walter
Robinson, Rt. Hn. K. (St. Pancras, N.)
Wallace, George


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Watkins, Tudor


Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Rose, Paul B.
Weitzman, David


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Sheffield Pk)
Rowland, Christopher
White, Mrs. Eirene


Murray, Albert
Sheldon, Robert
Whitlock, William


Newens, Stan
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Wilkins, W. A.


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Norwood, Christopher
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Oakes, Gordon
Silkin, John (Deptford)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Ogden, Eric
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


O'Malley, Brian
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Orbach, Maurice
Skeffington, Arthur
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Orme, Stanley
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Oswald, Thomas
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Owen, Will
Small, William
Woof, Robert


Padley, Walter
Solomons, Henry
Wyatt, Woodrow


Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Paget, R. T.
Spriggs, Leslie
Zilliacus, K.


Palmer, Arthur
Steel, David (Roxburgh)



Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Pargiter, G. A.
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Mr. Sydney Irving and


Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)
Stonehouse, John
Mr. George Rogers.


Parker, John
Stones, William



Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, put and agreed to.

Original Question again proposed.

Mr. Cyril Bence: rose—

It being after Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Judges' Remuneration Bill and on consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Firearms Bill and Lords Amendment to the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[The Attorney-General.]

JUDGES' REMUNERATION [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session to increase the salaries attached to certain high judicial offices, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of—

(a) the salaries payable under that Act to the Lord Chancellor and the holders of other high judicial offices; and
(b) any increase in the sums payable out of that Fund under any other enactment which is attributable to provisions of that Act relating to such salaries, increasing the rate of the Lord Chancellor's pension or providing for the appointment of additional judges of the High Court in England.

Resolution agreed to.

JUDGES' REMUNERATION BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Dr. HORACE KING in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(INCREASED SALARIES OF JUDGES.)

10.15 p.m.

The Chairman: The first Amendment selected is Amendment No. 3, Clause 1, in page 1, line 6, leave out from "rate" to end of line 7 and insert:
equivalent to an increase of 3½ per cent. on his present salary".
With that Amendment I propose that we take the following Amendments: Amendment No. 4, Clause 1, page 1, line 7, at end insert:
subject to these rates being agreed to by the National Incomes Commission".
Amendment No. 5, Clause 1, page 1, line 7, at end insert:
less any emoluments he may receive by way of expense and travelling allowances".
Amendment No. 72, Clause 1, page 1, line 10, leave out from "may" to end of line 11 and insert:
not exceed 3½ per cent. on the existing salary",
and new Clause No. 1, Reference to National Incomes Commission.

Mr. R. T. Paget: On a point of order, Dr. King. My name has been erroneously included on a number of new Clauses. This has been a mistake. I do not altogether agree with those new Clauses. Perhaps my name could be removed so far as concerns the record.
A second point of order I want to make is with regard to the following Amendments: Amendment No. 26, in Clause 5, page 3, line 1, leave out from "Act" to "shall" in line 2.
Amendment No. 27, in Clause 5, page 3, line 3, leave out "1st April 1966" and insert:
a day to be appointed by Her Majesty by Order in Council being a date not earlier than the day after the General Election following the passing of this Act";
and Amendment No. 28, in Clause 5, page 3, line 3, leave out "1966" and insert "1967".
I understand, Dr. King, that it is your intention to select Amendment No. 26 which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) and that we may discuss Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 with it. Amendment No. 28 is in the name of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover). My application to you is that Amendment No. 28 which is one we should like to vote on should be selected and that the other two Amendments should be discussed with it. That has the agreement of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North.

The Chairman: With regard to the first point, it is obviously impossible to correct all the Notice Papers which are in the hands of hon. Members at the moment. I take it that the Committee will understand that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) is not supporting the new Clauses to which his name has been erroneously attached. If the Committee should last for another day the Notice Papers would be duly corrected.
To the second suggestion, I see no objection whatever. I grouped the Amendments in this order because they were linked, and I based them on the first because that was convenient. I have no objection whatever to taking the course which the hon. and learned Member has suggested if he has the approval of those whose names are attached to the three Amendments, and, if necessary, when we come to it allowing a Division on Amendment No. 28.

Sir Douglas Glover: As Amendment No. 28 stands in my name, may I say that I have no objection to that procedure.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 72 and New Clause No. 1.

The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt on a technicality. The hon. Gentleman moves only one Amendment. The others he may speak about.

Mr. Lewis: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, Clause 1, in page 1, line 6, to leave out from "rate" to the end of line 7 and to insert:
equivalent to an increase of 3½ per cent. on his present salary".


This Amendment, associated with the others which you mentioned, Dr. King, has as its objective something which I think can be warmly supported by hon. Members on both sides, with the exception of an hon. Gentleman who is not here—the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, East, is it? I do not know his constituency, because he is not here very often. The object of these Amendments is to limit the proposed increases in the salaries of judges to a figure of 3½ per cent. My hon. Friends will appreciate that there is a reason for the figure of 3½ per cent. It is a very popular figure at the moment. Whenever there is any discussion—

Hon. Members: What about the teachers?

The Chairman: Order. We cannot have debate by shouting across the Floor. If hon. Members want to make points of disagreement, they will have an opportunity in the debate.

Mr. Lewis: I was saying that 3½ per cent. has been spoken of quite a lot during the last few months. Those who work by hand and by brain have been asked and are being asked to limit their increases to 3½ per cent. Some unions are supporting this. Most of my hon. Friends are supporting it. I understand that most hon. Members opposite support it. But some unions are not exactly in favour of this and some of them are negotiating and trying to negotiate for more than 3½ per cent.
I heard an interjection about teachers. Teachers, rightly, have been negotiating, and good luck to them. They have had a rather limited increase of, I think, 13 per cent., limited as compared to the 25 per cent. proposed in the Bill. Teachers rightly or wrongly feel that, as there is a shortage of teachers, and as there is a dire need to get people to enter the profession, their union should negotiate for a larger sum. But there is no shortage of judges or potential aspirants to that office. Almost every legal luminary would willingly take the job if he could but get the offer, but the regrettable thing is that they are not at the moment getting the offer. I know of a number of hon. and learned Gentlemen in the Committee at the moment

who would jump at the opportunity. So it cannot be said that in this instance the need is to increase the salary by 25 per cent. because there is a shortage.
Teachers—this applies to railwaymen and every other type of industrial worker—are in the position that, if they do not get what they feel to be an adequate increase through normal industrial negotiations, they can refer their case to arbitration. The teachers did just that. Therefore, one of the Amendments proposes that this increase should be limited to 3½ per cent., and if the judges do not feel satisfied, as they have not got a trade union affiliated to the T.U.C.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I do not know why not. They would probably feel that on their limited salaries they could not afford the affiliation fees.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that Scottish judges are intending to join the Transport and General Workers Union?

Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend may well be right. I am not well up in Scottish affairs. All I know about Scottish affairs is that something has happened today which has to do with Scotland. Incidentally, they have chosen a good union because, as I understand, that union is not in favour of the 3½ per cent. They may well get their 25 per cent. if they join it, but I am not canvassing for that union. If these worthy, learned judges are dissatisfied with the 3½ per cent., and since they have no trade union and no method of negotiation and arbitration, we have tabled an Amendment to help them by enabling them to refer the matter to the National Incomes Commission to arbitrate on whether 3½ per cent. is adequate.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Member is suggesting that they have asked for an increase. Is not it a fact that they have not asked but that it is being offered to them?

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Member may know the truth of this. I do not know. I was told by the Attorney-General on Second Reading, when the hon. Member was not present, that it was the Conservative Government and not this Government who did all this. It was difficult to get at the truth of the matter because


my right hon. and learned Friend said it was the Conservative Government who last March came to an agreement that in the early period of office of the next Government, irrespective of party, judges' salaries would be increased, but the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) interjected and said that there was no such arrangement. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) pulls a face. I agree, I was amazed and there was an alteration—

The Chairman: I can understand the hon. Member's amazement, but he must come back to the Amendments.

Mr. Lewis: I am trying to get it clear whether or not my suggestion of the National Incomes Commission as the arbitrating body is the right one or the other arbitrating body which may or may not have been active on this matter over the last 12 months or so. I do not know whether or not there was an arbitration committee. Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend can tell me that there is one in existence—either a trade union of judges or some negotiating body which negotiated either with the previous Government or the present Government or with both. If he does, I might well be willing to withdraw my Amendment which suggests that this matter should go to the National Incomes Commission and instead leave it to the usual channels between the two sides. It is relevant to try to ascertain whether or not there were negotiations, agreements or understandings, or whatever they may have been.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): It may or may not help my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) in his consideration of this matter to know that the body which he suggests should adjudicate upon it, namely the National Incomes Commission, unhappily no longer exists.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Lewis: My right hon. and learned Friend has brought me to the next point I was about to put. I understood that when I put down the Amendment, and I had it in mind to suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend that, at this stage of the Bill, or on Report, he might care to undertake to refer the question to this committee which has been negotiating behind the scenes between the two

Governments, the previous Government and this one. I left it so that I could give him an opportunity to do that.

Sir D. Glover: We all know that the hon. Gentleman is a great believer in democracy. If one Parliament is to be bound by the decisions of a previous Parliament, what is the point in having elections? Elections are held to decide whether the previous course of policy should be continued.

The Chairman: Order. We are now getting into a debate on constitutional procedure. That does not arise on the Amendment.

Sir D. Glover: With respect, Dr. King, if I may be allowed to expand the point a little—

The Chairman: I understood the hon. Gentleman's argument. Expanding it would not bring it within order but would take it further out of order.

Mr. Lewis: I am sorry that you will not allow me to develop it, Dr. King, because I should love to do so. The Attorney-General definitely stated that there was an agreement, although the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral denied it. If there was such a committee, discussion, agreement, or whatever it was, we ought to know, and we ought to know what agreement was arrived at. I do not feel that I should be bound by secretly negotiated agreements between the previous Administration and the present one without my having the opportunity, at least, to express my opposition to it.

Mr. William Yates: There are many people in this country who have no trade union. Members of this House, acting in their own behalf in regard to their salaries, have no union. Presumably the Government agreed to alter our salaries and at the same time they agreed to alter the salaries of the judges. We are sorry we have no unions. It is not our fault any more than it is the judges'.

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. An independent Committee was set up to consider Members' salaries, and both sides publicly declared their adherence to it. But I should not be allowed to develop that at length. There was a Committee set up—

The Chairman: Order. Perhaps I can help the Committee. We have a lot of work before us. It will not help if we wander away from the Amendments which we are discussing. We are at present discussing whether the salaries should be increased by 3½ per cent., as several Amendments suggest, and whether, as the new Clause proposes, they should be referred to arbitration.

Sir D. Glover: On a point of order, Dr. King. I suggest that we must take into account the statement made from both Front Benches that there was some form of agreement between the two parties before the election.

The Chairman: That would arise on the Second Reading of the Bill, and it may even arise—I am not a prophet—on some Amendment. It might arise on the Third Reading. But it does not arise on these Amendments, and we must keep in order.

Mr. Lewis: Perhaps I can help by suggesting that, if my right hon. and learned Friend does not agree with my Amendment to refer the matter to the type of Commission I suggest, he might consider reconvening the Lawrence Committee, which considered Members' salaries, to deal with the question of judges' salaries. There was a definite agreement with regard to Members' salaries when the Lawrence Committee was set up. The setting up of that Committee was publicly declared and publicly made known, and publicly both parties declared they would implement its decision. If hon. Members do not like the Commission I am suggesting its name can be changed, or some other similar body can have this matter referred to it. I would welcome the Lawrence Committee, because it has in part dealt with the matter—in the instance of the Lord Chancellor.

Sir D. Glover: rose—

Mr. Lewis: Let me make a little point in between interjections. Very well, I give way.

Sir D. Glover: The hon. Gentleman and I are in agreement on this. What he is saying is that the Lawrence Committee was a public body agreed to by both sides here, but now on the hon. Gentleman's side of this Committee are

at least a hundred Members who were not Members in the last Parliament. Are they bound by some private agreement reached between the two Front Benches?

Mr. Lewis: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. He should sign a Motion I have on the Notice Paper, because it sums up what he has just said. If he signs I shall be very pleased. I take his point and agree with it, that if there was this agreement it ought to be publicised, and I believe that this is a means whereby it could be publicised, and I think this is a means whereby this matter, if we had an independent inquiry, would be put on all fours with that of Members' salaries, because that was declared at the time of the Election. I am suggesting that this matter, too, should have been declared.
I cannot for the life of me see why a 25 per cent. increase should be proposed. That is why I am suggesting that it should be reduced to 3½ per cent. We had not heard anything about this increase until lately. Not even in the Queen's Speech was this revealed. It is slipped in at the fag end of this Session, and we are to have it steamrollered through, we are told, to satisfy the Government—or the Opposition. I do not know which. But it certainly is not going to satisfy me.
Who has asked for this increase? I asked a Question of the Prime Minister today and I got an Answer. I asked him how many trade unions had asked for this increase. The answer was, None. I asked how many co-operative parties had asked for it. The answer was, None. I asked how many Labour parties had asked for it. The answer was, None—[Interruption.] How many Tory parties? None.
I cannot see on what basis this 25 per cent. has been worked out. I know that during Second Reading the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned something about an accumulative 1·9 per cent. If that is the basis does it mean that every worker can claim automatically a retrospective 1·9 per cent.? [HON. MEMBERS: "They have."] They have not had it. There are plenty of people who are doing very essential work who have not had it—plenty among


the lower-paid people at £3 and £4 and £5 a week, cleaners—

Sir D. Glover: Who?

Mr. Lewis: Yes, cleaners—in some of the Government offices. They have not had it.
I suggest that this ought to be looked at again. I believe there is no urgency to get this Bill through. I do not think there will be any strikes if we suggest substituting 3½ per cent. for 25 per cent. I do not think there would be any judges who would be found starving or in need or in want if we gave them 3½ per cent. instead of 25 per cent.
What I was interested to see was that the First Secretary of State did not put his name to the Bill and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not put his name to the Bill. I want to know whether this has been discussed, and is being discussed, by the Government in the light of their general policy on wages, salaries and prices. This is the wrong time to grant an increase of this amount.
Before hon. Members intervene to talk about Members' salaries, perhaps I might point out our salaries were decided as a result of an independent inquiry which went into the matter very fully. If my right hon. and learned Friend gives me an assurance that he will set up a committee of inquiry to consider judges' pay, I in return will give the assurance that if it recommends a 25 per cent. increase I shall support it. I make that declaration publicly, and not through the usual channels.
With regard to this question of a 25 per cent. increase as against a 3½ per cent. increase which I am suggesting, it is not possible to compare judges' salaries with what Members of this House are paid, because judges do not have to meet the cost of postage, transport, and living away from home out of their salaries. In addition to this proposed 25 per cent. increase, judges have a rather handsome arrangement whereby they receive £8 10s. per day, tax free, while they are on Circuit. This is to cover their expenses while they are away from home. They can, however, work on the basis of an assistance pool which is financed by public money, and in that event they receive only £5 2s. per day. If there has been a rise in the cost of living over the last 10 or 11

years, and if judges are receiving expenses to cover that rise, their financial position cannot be compared with that of Members of this House.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I have followed the hon. Gentleman's argument that there is no analogy between M.P.s and judges, but I should like to hear his views about Cabinet Ministers whose salaries went up from £5,000 to £8,500, an increase of 65 per cent. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting, first, that they would have gone on strike if they had not had the increase, and, secondly, that they would have starved if they had not had it?

Mr. Lewis: I am surprised at the hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention. He has got himself a job as a recorder, and no doubt he aspires to a judgeship. I am surprised that he has not understood what I have been saying. I am saying that the Lawrence Committee considered the question of Members' salaries, and recommended certain increases. I might agree that it recommended too big an increase for Cabinet Ministers. I might agree that the increase should not have been paid, but the point is that there was a public inquiry into the matter, the Committee's recommendations were debated in this House, and the matter was discussed during the election. That has not happened with regard to judges' salaries.

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman describes me as a recorder. I am not; nor am I an aspirer to a judgeship. Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman is an aspirer to Cabinet rank?

Mr. Lewis: I apologise, and withdraw what I said about the hon. and learned Gentleman being a recorder, but I hope that he gets both appointments very quickly. As to my aspiring to Cabinet rank, either in this Government or in a Government formed by the party opposite, the hon. and learned Gentleman should know that the way to do that is not to try to get this right put wrong by one's own Government. [Laughter.] That is not the way to do things. The hon. and learned Gentleman has been here long enough to know that the way to do it is to row in with the Front Bench and to let the Government and Opposition Whips know that one will agree with everything that they say and do.

10.45 p.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Crossman) did not row in with his Front Bench very often.

The Chairman: I think we must get back to the subject of 3½ per cent.

Mr. Lewis: I do not want to go on at any great length. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am grateful for that cheer. Hon. Members opposite do not have to wait. They can go. There is no need for hon. Members on my side to wait, either. There is no need for them to wait in order to vote. In fact, there is no need for hon. Members on either side to wait, because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has declared that he is not going to accept defeat on anything of this character as a need to resign. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] He has declared it publicly. He has already suffered a defeat on the Finance Bill, and he may find that he suffers another tonight.
I remind hon. Members, too, that it is not my hon. Friends and myself who are responsible for this matter coming on at such a late hour. We did not put down Second Reading for after 10 o'clock, and we did not put down the Committee stage for after 10 o'clock.
I do not think that any of the judges would resign, but I have heard it suggested—and I should like to ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General or my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General about it, and I want an answer—that, unless the Bill is carried through without any amendments, the Lord Chancellor threatens to resign. I do not know if that is true, but, if he is threatening to resign, I say let him resign. There are plenty of hon. and learned Gentlemen both in and out of the House who would be only too willing to take on the job at the existing salary—never mind a 3½ per cent. increase as proposed by me, or a 25 per cent. increase.
However, we ought to debate the matter and say what we think. If an hon. Member thinks that it is right, good luck to him. But I personally and many of my constituents and many of my hon.

Friends' constituents do not think that it is right.

The Attorney-General: rose—

Mr. Lewis: I will give way to my right hon. and learned Friend in a minute. I might say that during Second Reading I made a remark for which I now apologise, and I ask him to accept my apology. I happened to mention that I thought his constituents were against the Bill, and I withdraw that.

The Attorney-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for apologising now. I only wonder why he repeated the same remark a moment or two ago.

Mr. Lewis: I said that I am sure that there are many constituents of hon. Members on both sides of the House, including my hon. Friends, in the plural, who are against the Bill at this juncture.
I was going on to say—and it is a point that I want to emphasise—that the salary increase to Members of Parliament was implemented prior to the new policy of the Government based on 3½ per cent.
I do not think that it will mean anything at all if we ask for this huge increase to be put off, with a 3½ per cent. increase given immediately, pending an investigation. If the investigation comes back with a public recommendation of 25 or even 30 per cent., I shall be quite willing to accept it.

Mr. Leslie Hale: If no one else is rising to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), I should like to put forward one or two points.
I have a very great regard for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. I am very reluctant to say any word which would bring me into conflict with him, but I do not think that he should dismiss this matter quite so lightly as he appears to be doing.
Many of us are finding ourselves in an absolutely intolerable situation. If my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North presses his Amendment to a Division, I shall vote against it. I regret that the judiciary is being embroiled in a conflict which should not have been forced upon the House of Commons. I have


great sympathy with the views of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North, and I am not criticising him, for it is important that we should have regard to expenditure. However, as he interrupted an hon. Member on Second Reading to say that that hon. Member was a lawyer—I do not think that he said the same of our hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget)—perhaps I ought to say that I have a judicial decision to say that I am not a lawyer for Income Tax purposes, so that I can exculpate myself from any accusation against me of being a Jack Cade in that respect. The only thing a High Court judge is likely to give me is five years.
I still take the view that the judiciary, on the King's Bench and Court of Criminal Appeal, is the best we have ever known. It is facing a frightful problem in dealing with criminal cases and facing it with humanity. I am saying this off the cuff, but I say many things off the cuff and still do so with sincerity. The decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeal give a feeling that we now have men who are not only lawyers or judges, but men who have a real sense of penal reform, men who are trying desperately hard to solve these problems. I think that they will understand the problem which the hon. Member for Oldham, West faces tonight.
We are not entitled to argue about the 3½ per cent. It is dead. I am sorry that it is dead. It is an argument which we can use about teachers, or Post Office engineers, or doctors, or judges, at large, but not in particular. It is not fair to make it in particular.
With very great respect—and I say it with respect, and he know it and I like him—the Attorney-General, perhaps because he came from the courts, made his Second Reading speech perhaps without realising that there would be as much opposition to the Bill as there was. He did not refer to the pensions for the judiciary, not merely pensions for judges, but for their widows and so on. I know that one makes these casual observations, but he said that the salaries of these judges were fixed at a time when there was no Income Tax, as though when Income Tax provisions were introduced one had to make financial

adjustments so that anyone who paid Income Tax got the money back out of the State. That sort of argument is not fair.
I represent Oldham and, on occasion, I have referred to Oldham, which I regard as a very civilised town. It has a very civilised newspaper. I suppose that I shall be accused of currying favour with the local Press and so on, but heaven knows that I have been rude enough about it in my time. It is a liberal newspaper with a liberal mind. I have with me a leading article which it wrote on this subject which is revealing. It says:
A High Court judge receives something like £8,000 a year. If he is given a 25 per cent. increase under the Government's bill, he will be gaining an additional income of £40 a week, bringing his gross weekly income to £160 each week.
Butchers, bakers, candlestick-makers, bus drivers, cotton operatives"—
facing unemployment at this moment
engineers, building workers, shop assistants—how many of those people are yet making £20 a week. Not so many, and that is what all the trouble is about. It is quite futile to expect the man in the street to understand astronomic increases of £40 a week when he is himself, by the party which claims to represent him, exhorted to keep his own wage rises down to a certain percentage.
How often does one read stories of occupations which have been awarded wage increases of 14s., or 9s. 6d., or 5s. 7d. for unskilled workers? What are these recipients to think when they read of the financial pickings which are coming the way of the judges.
That is why I say that those of us who are really concerned, and deeply concerned, should not rather interpret Jack Cade as a theory we can exploit after 10 o'clock at night.
How am I to vote? I shall vote in favour of the increases with deep reluctance, except for the increase for the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, which is monstrous for a political appointment. It is monstrous to come here and ask for such provision to be made for a very distinguished man of high character—I have nothing against him—but it was a political appointment. To say that a man who said, "I am going to leave my constituents and take a comfortable job at a very high salary", should be given a special increase because it is said that his amour-propre—the cotton workers


have amour-propre, and they are getting out of work. Last night we were having rather heated, sometimes even facetious, arguments.
I do not blame my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. I have no doubt that he inherited the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North said something about rumours about the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor is a man of the highest character I have ever known. He is a man of a great record of social service. I cannot think that he can have made the observations that my hon. Friend attributed to him. But respecting him as I do, admiring him as I do, regarding him as, perhaps, one of the men whose character, reputation, talent for social service, complete absence of cupidity and generosity put him above personal criticism, if he did make the remark, which I do not believe he did, which was attributed to him by my hon. Friend, I should personally and politely say exactly what my hon. Friend said.
It is quite impossible that a new member of the Government in the House of Lords should say, "I propose to dictate what the House of Commons should do", and I am quite sure that he did not. If he said, "I should be so hurt that I should have to consider my position", he is entitled to do that. He might easily have said that; I do not know. We cannot have regard, of course, to any observations of that kind.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North said that there was some talk about resignations from the Government. The Whips are not entitled to be on on a matter of this kind. I would not regard myself as subject to a Whip on a matter of this kind. The Labour Party has been able to demand from all its members a massive and almost humble loyalty, but on a matter of this kind, introduced after 10 o'clock at night, we are entitled to say to Her Majesty's judiciary something else. We are entitled to say, "We do not know whether you asked for this, and we certainly do not wish to use facile arguments to reject a demand". Indeed, there was a letter in The Times from the hon. Lady who represents a constituency on Tees-side or Tyneside—

Dame Irene Ward: Tyneside.

Mr. Hale: I am not sure that the hon. Lady is entitled to make any observation from the position in which she sits. Nevertheless, I am grateful to her for the intervention. It was, however, a good letter. Roughly speaking, it set out my views. It reminds me of the old proverb I was taught that one must not judge the "yeds" by the "yats". It was a thoughtful letter.
The Government have put many of us in a great difficulty in introducing this Measure. If one could take the views of the judges—and I propose at a later stage in the discussion of the Clause, if I have the good fortune to catch your eye, Sir Samuel, to refer to the constitutional position concerning judges' salaries which they raised in 1931. I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) who mentioned this on Second Reading, but I mentioned it some years ago—I do not claim any copyright in this—when the first question of judges' salaries was mentioned by my old friend the late Glenvil Hall, the former Member for Colne Valley, when Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
11.0 p.m.
It is important, at any rate, that we should try to deal with the situation, which is a very serious one and raises a very important point. According to the book by Mr. Hewson—a wonderful book, which I recommend for holiday reading, assuming that we get any holidays—of writings from Lord Chancellors from Halsbury to Sankey, records judges frothing at the mouth about the suggestion that Parliament would have the impudence to reduce their salaries. In interviews, judges were saying that Parliament had no right—

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Samuel Storey): Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting very far from the Amendment.

Mr. Hale: Of course, I agree with you entirely, Sir Samuel. I submit very happily to your Ruling. I was anticipating much which, with your benevolence and acceptance of my rising, will be said in two or three hours' time.
This may be a valid argument against my hon. Friend's point, that if the judges


cannot be reduced by 10 per cent. they cannot have their rise limited to 3½ per cent. under a formula which has not yet received legislative sanction. I am sorry that it has not. I desire to say—no: I should be out of order if I said it—but I want at least to make the point that I am not criticising the formula which the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs has battled hard and sincerely to bring into force. I am not complaining that it has not attained impossible heights.
So many of the old Wilsonian has-beens who have signed the Amendment are my old colleagues, with whom, in the dark days, we discovered Mount Wilson in the lonely Arctic wastes, the almost unapproachable political wastes, of the 1950's, that it would be fair for me to take an early opportunity to say, at this time, that I do not completely agree with some of their Amendments. On the other hand, I can sympathise with the motive which have made my hon. Friends formulate them. The dignity of the judiciary is important. It is true that the Counsellor Carter said that it was only "rabbit's skin", but it is still important.
Anyone who agrees with that might well consider whether it would not be better to withdraw this Amendment at this extremely unfortunate time, when every Labour Member is being faced with a miserable dilemma. I hope that you will not watch me for the next ten seconds, Sir Samuel, because, in my peroration, I may be tempted to say that, at a time when this House is unwilling to give me ten minutes to discuss the question of byssinosis and the people coughing themselves to death in Oldham, out of work, it is tough for me—it would be an easier course to vote with my hon. Friends—to stay here for hours discussing judicial salaries for the fourth or fifth times since I have been a Member of Parliament, while nothing is being done for the workers in Oldham who are losing their jobs bit by bit and coughing their hearts up with a disease which leaves them to endure the provision which is made for them with the courage they have.
This sort of case is not encouraging for them. It may be that these arguments are unfair. I would think that they were

unfair if I were a judge. This is the dilemma. Is one justified in saying this? I doubt it. In a sense, some of these arguments are dishonest, but, to an hon. Member representing a working-class constituency, it is almost impossible not to say them and think them and not to have them in mind.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I had not intended to intervene in what is beginning to have the appearance of being a private fight on the benches opposite. However, I intervene to make a few observations which have occured to me when listening to the last two speeches.
I always listen with great interest and respect to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), and I thought that his speech raised the level of debate from that at which it started, although he made one observation to which I come immediately. He made what I took to be an unfair and unkind reference to somebody who many hon. Members and many people outside the Committee hold in very high respect. He referred to the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division in terms which, knowing the hon. Gentleman to be a fair-minded man, I believe that he will regret.

Mr. Hale: I tried to say—I hope I made it clear—that the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division is a man of exemplary character, great ability and fine record. I made no personal criticism of him at all. I said that, in the terms of the definition—I do not know how one otherwise defines it—it was a political appointment to appoint a Tory with a majority of 8,000, a man aged 50, with 10 years' Parliamentary service and with not much experience at the Bar—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I do not think that we can pursue this point at the moment. There is an Amendment dealing with this salary later.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I think, Sir Samuel, that I shall be within the bounds of order, and certainly within the bounds of propriety, if I finish by saying—because the hon. Member for Oldham, West and I are not going to quarrel about this or anything else—that I feel it my duty to make these comments,


not only because I have been fortunate enough to enjoy such a long friendship with the gentleman in question, but also because I could not agree that in any sense it was a political appointment; if by that the hon. Gentleman means that but for the political standing of the gentleman in question he would not have been appointed, I think we all know that, in fact, he had a very large and distinguished practice in that sphere of the law. He made very considerable sacrifices to assume Ministerial office and conscientiously discharged those duties. Since his appointment to his high judicial office he has brought to the discharge of his duties and the problems which he encounters a sensitive and conscientious approach. I feel, since he has discharged those duties with that distinction, that it is right that I should take this early opportunity of putting these facts on the record.

Mr. Leo Abse: I gather that there will be many opportunities, on later Amendments, to discuss the function of the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division. I suggest, with respect, that it is highly undesirable at this time to comment on the conduct of the President since that might invite possible criticisms of the President, for many of us would criticise many of his decisions. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is, therefore, making a very undesirable interpolation.

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I have already ruled that hon. Members will be able to discuss this appointment when we come to later Amendments. What had been said I think called for some reply. I think that that has been made, and I trust that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not pursue the matter.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Indeed not, Sir Samuel. I have said what I felt I should say and I certainly will not pursue the matter further.
The next point which provoked me into saying a word on this matter is this. I think that it would be generally felt to be unfortunate in the country if the judiciary and the emoluments of the judiciary became too much the subject of controversy in the House of Commons. Of course

any Bill that is put before this House should be discussed, and dispassionately and objectively discussed, and no one would say anything to the contrary on that. But when listening to the hon. Member for West Ham, North, I felt that he overlooked most of the basic factors of this matter.
It is part of a very great problem that we have in this country. To put it shortly, it is that the 3½ per cent. to which the hon. Member refers is an expression of what used to be known as the "guiding light", as the sort of figure that should be borne in mind as an annual rate of increase for people in productive work, being measured against the estimated increase in the gross national product year by year.
I have said in this House before on different topics that there is a considerable problem here, because there is a very large section of the population to whom it is very difficult to apply this type of index, first, because there is no index of productivity by which their activity can be measured and, secondly, because they have no annual wage negotiations and no arbitration machinery. Therefore, when applying this criterion of the 3½ per cent., the hon. Gentleman must, in fairness, recognise that it does not apply in the case of judges.
But let us assume for a moment, contrary to that contention, that it did apply. The hon. Gentleman must then relate it to the annual equivalent, which is what it is; and the 3½ per cent., if it be the annual equivalent, has to be related to the fact that these emoluments have stood still since 1954. I am no mathematician, but I would think that if one worked out the cumulative increase that would represent the deferred emoluments, owing to the fact that the annual increment had not been put into operation, it would represent considerably more than the percentage increase to which the hon. Gentleman keeps referring.
He does not assist the more serious purpose and deliberation of this Committee if he insists on comparing like with unlike—

Mr. Hale: I would remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that in 1959 the Judicial Pensions Bill was also introduced, which made very specific and substantial additional provision. It is right


we should remember that. I am not making a strong point of it but would only say that when my own ashes are ceremonially disposed of in the "No" Lobby my missus will get £300 a year.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I am very glad to get back to a point of agreement with the hon. Gentleman, which is that I hope that any such sad event will be very long deferred indeed.
Of course, it is right that we should have regard to the surrounding circumstances, including pensionable emoluments, and so on, and no doubt an actuarial calculation could be made to show, taking account of all these matters, what the figure should now be. But the hon. Gentleman has not made it. All he invites us to do is to take the figure of increase as it is and relate that to what is admittedly an annual figure. I say, with respect, that that is clearly comparing like with unlike. That suggestion, therefore, does not assist the Committee's purpose.
There is also the test suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) of comparing the percentage increase in judicial salaries with that in Cabinet salaries. Here is a link which has been accepted, and I think that there should be some relationship between these things.
11.15 p.m.
There is the very high increase in Cabinet Ministers' salaries.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: What about the Committee?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: The hon. Member, I presume, refers to the Lawrence Committee. All I can say is that he may have spent his time during the election in discussing these salaries, but for my own part I was engaged in much wider matters coming far nearer to the wellbeing of the people and the position of this country in general.

Mr. Lewis: During the period of the General Election, as a national issue, this question was discussed, but at no time since last March, when apparently there was an agreement, was there any public announcement until this Bill was introduced.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I have not referred to the salaries of hon. Members—

I was speaking of the salaries of Cabinet Ministers—but, so far as I understand him, the hon. Gentleman disclaims any interest in the remuneration of Cabinet Ministers because he told the House a short while ago that he did not think he would ever be likely to occupy such a position since he had adopted the attitude he is taking. Yet he need not despair. I would remind him of a passage in the Forsyte Saga in which Soames Forsyte was talking to Sir Laurence Mont, saying that there were two methods of getting on the Board—the method of oil and the method of vinegar. So the hon. Gentleman should persevere. If he wants encouragement, he should look about him.

Mr. Lewis: Can I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman which way he did it; by the oil method or the vinegar method?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I was a conscript into the ranks of Government. I did not want to go in, and I was glad to get out; and I do not want to go back. What I was trying to tell the hon. Gentleman is that he should not despair. If he adopts the vinegar method, it may be a test for the Government as to whether it gives way and admits him to its ranks.
I must return to the more serious aspects of the matter before the House. The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the salaries of hon. Members. Of course it cannot be measured on a productivity basis, or as any part of the gross national product. It cannot be measured on the annual increment basis, because there was no annual increment. It cannot be measured in terms of arbitration, because there was no arbitration; but, having regard to all these matters, there was a substantial increase. The same considerations apply in respect of judicial salaries.

Mr. Lewis: indicated dissent.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I think that they do. He speaks of public opinion. Has he had a great flood of letters about this?

Mr. Lewis: indicated assent.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: He has? Well, I have a very large constituency, but I


have had no letters at all; at any rate, none as yet. I may get some, although I do not flatter myself by thinking that many of my constituents are going to read in HANSARD of what I may say at twenty minutes past eleven at night. My constituents take account, I think, that the judiciary do not get annual increments.

Sir D. Glover: rose—

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I will give way to my hon. Friend in a moment. Let me say that my constituents realise that there is a great importance attaching to the judicial functions and they think that an increase such as is proposed, coming after more than a decade, is justified. At least, that is what I think. I have taken no plebiscite, but I should say that that would be their view.

Sir D. Glover: My right hon. and learned Friend rather horrifies me. Is he saying that the views of ordinary Members of Parliament are formed by the mischance or the unfortunate chance of the number of letters they receive on a particular problem? It may be that the people who would have written letters to us happen to be on holiday, or it may be because of all sorts of things that we do not get letters. It is a most extraordinary suggestion that one's judgment in this House is governed by the number of letters one receives.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I hope my hon. Friend is not going to say that he disregards the letters he receives. There seems to be a private fight going on on this side of the Committee now. Whatever view my hon. Friend's constituents may take, my constituents are kind enough to write to me even when they are on holiday. There are a great number of them, and they have not said that they disapprove of judges' salaries being increased.
I suggest that if one applies these various tests objectively and dispassionately one must agree that this is a not inappropriate increase at present. It probably is not very welcome to judges that their emoluments should be discussed in this way, but there is no other way in which it can be done since it requires an Act of Parliament to fix the emoluments. I think it not inappropriate to

end these few remarks by saying what I believe to be the view of the overwhelming majority of the people in the country that they should hold their judges in high esteem, they have a high regard for the demanding work which judges do, and they think they should be fairly and properly remunerated in recognition and in proportion to the work they do.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I have no intention of delaying the Committee unduly, but I do not think it is the responsibility of those of us who have certain anxieties about some of the Clauses in the Bill to apologise. The fact that we are discussing this matter after 10 o'clock at night is not our fault.
The reason why I intervene is the speech made by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). I do not think he need worry as he will not be back in Government for a long time. He need not worry about the number of letters he receives because the only people likely to write to a Conservative Q.C. about this matter are the judges. Every argument he used became an argument for this Amendment. He said that there is no criterion by which these salaries can be judged. Judges' productivity cannot even be judged now by the numbers of hangings. I think the right hon. and learned Member referred to one or two other tests which could have been used such as arbitration, but argued they do not exist in this case.
But one criterion has begun to exist for every worker in the country, the so-called "guiding light" of 3½ per cent. No one has yet asserted that the existing salaries of judges are inadequate in terms of living conditions. We must therefore reckon them as adequate at the moment. This new criterion of 3½ per cent. therefore seems to be the right criterion, the touchstone on which to base salaries, so I hope that the right hon. and learned Member will now support us. I wish to relate what I have to say to 3½ per cent. because, in spite of the ebullience of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) and the oratory of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) certain points still need to be made. Justice has to be seen to be done even when it applies to judges. The trouble about going forward


at the end of a crowded Session with salary and pensions increases of this nature is quite simply that justice is not seen to be done.
It is no use telling us that the increase if spread over 11 years works out at only 2 per cent: a year. This is meaningless to the workers. The 3½ per cent. figure applied to the proposed salary of £10,000 means £350 a year, or £7 a week. Three and a half per cent. to a man earning £10 a week, which is what many of my constituents working in the shipyards earn, means between 6s. and 7s. a week. It is no use saying that the judges have had no increase for eleven years. They have been doing all right. During those eleven years my shipyard workers have been receiving less than £10 a week. There is no comparison. There is no justice. I have reservations even about the 3½ per cent. in the Amendment, because 3½ per cent. does not alter this injustice. It perpetuates it. If 3½ per cent. is applied to both £100 a week and to £10 a week, it does not bring equality any nearer. It perpetuates and eventually increases the inequality and therefore the injustice.
However, I am prepared to compromise in my desire for justice and support the Amendment suggesting 3½ per cent., because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West, I have been placed in an intolerable position. I am one of those to whom an hon. Member opposite referred who had no part in any agreement and who were not even in the House of Commons when any agreement was arrived at. I made a pledge to those in my constituency to work for a society based on equality and justice. I cannot convince my constituents of the necessity for this Bill coming at this time in the first year of a Labour Government. I have asked my people to accept the concept of 3½ per cent. in the incomes policy. I accept the basis of the incomes policy. I have advised all the trade unions in my area to endorse the incomes policy, because I believe it can be used as a Socialist instrument to create more justice. But it cannot be used as an instrument to create more justice if dividends are allowed to increase by 28 per cent. in the last 12 months and salaries of £8,000 a year are allowed to increase to £11,000 a year, whereas 3½ per cent. for my workers on £10 a week amounts

to only 6s. a week. I ask that the guiding light quite frankly be used as an instrument for more egalitarianism. We have heard much of the importance of the work the judges do. Are the workers in my shipyards not doing equally important work?

Mr. William Yates: I thought that one of the great things about the trade unions was their insistence on differentials. Is there to be no "differential" between the work done in the Law Courts and that done in the shipyards?

Mr. Buchan: It is not valid to speak of a differential resulting in a difference in salary of £90 a week, namely, the difference between £10 and £100. Normally one thinks of differentials of 10s. or £1 a week. Those differentials are infinitesimal as compared with the standards of living involved in these increases. There is no comparison.
We have been told of the serious nature of the judges' work. The work done by workers in the aircraft industry or in shipyards is equally serious. Taking a steel plate and turning and twisting and moulding it is serious and important work. I cannot calculate the difference in importance between the two jobs. It is not a sufficient difference to justify an increase in salary equivalent to the wages of three workers for an entire year. I cannot accept that. Since I can neither accept nor excuse it, I speak in support of the Amendment. Unless the Amendment is accepted, a horse and cart will be driven through all our attempts to get the people behind us in our fight for an incomes policy. I hope that the Government will heed what has been said both on Second Reading and tonight. I hope that before the night is out the Government will meet us on this.

11.30 p.m.

Sir D. Glover: It is extraordinary that most of the best debates from a House of Commons point of view take place after 10 o'clock at night. We are now debating one of the fundamental rights of the House of Commons. I think that it is in order to say on the Amendment that we are debating whether a private agreement privately entered into by the Front Benches is binding on subsequent Parliaments. This is one of the greatest issues of freedom


for which the House has stood for centuries. I cannot believe that it is within any democratic concept that any Government Front Bench of whatever party can make in private consultation with the Opposition Front Bench an agreement which binds a new Parliament.
A new Parliament is a sovereign entity which makes its own decisions. I hope that I can honestly say that I would be making the sort of speech which I am making tonight if my party were on the Government side. I do not believe that any new Parliament can find itself fettered, hindered and obligated by some decision taken by a previous Parliament. If that is not true, what is the purpose of an election? I thought that the whole purpose of an election was to find out whether the Government of the day was carrying out the policies which the people wanted them to carry out, and, if they had not, to turn them out. Surely that is proof positive that any agreement entered into became null and void on the election of a new Parliament.
We have never received from the Government Front Bench a satisfactory explanation of whether they think that they are bound by some agreement unwritten and unsung. If it is true I am sure that my right hon. Friends will look equally guilty in these discussions. We have not had a clear indication whether the Government feel bound by some private arrangement entered into before the electorate had the right to say whether they would be the Government.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Surely my hon. Friend can see that it is the Government's business that is being discussed and that it is Government business that his hon. Friends are trying to amend. The Attorney-General should answer the point made by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) and by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) which is in line with what my hon. Friend is saying. The hon. Member for Oldham, West said that the Whips were not on and the hon. Member for West Ham, North said that if the Government were defeated it did not matter. The Prime Minister had given authority that it did not matter.

The Chairman: Order. This is a speech, not an intervention. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to

speak later. Perhaps he will now put his question briefly.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I was saying that whilst this is a Parliamentary occasion it is in fact Government business which is being amended and the Government should accept responsibility for the debate.

Mr. Hale: The hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) has attributed to me words which I never used, never intended to use and had not in mind. I never said that the Whips are not on. Whether they are or not is a private matter to which I made no reference. I said that in my view in a matter of this kind, trying to refer it to my own conscience, I was not concerned whether a directive had been given or not and that I should feel that this was an issue on which I was perfectly free to vote regardless of any advice from any source, official or unofficial.

The Chairman: That point having been cleared up—Sir Douglas Glover.

Sir D. Glover: May I continue my remarks after the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) and that of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), whom I revere and for whom I have enormous affection. I often disagree with the hon. Member, but tonight I agree with a great deal of what he has said. I find it surprising that nearly all the speeches made on Second Reading and in Committee on this Bill have been by lawyers. It is extraordinary how they have been putting all the arguments. There is nothing wrong about this, but it is extraordinary that they do not declare an interest in that they hope to be judges in five or ten years time. When I became a very junior subaltern in the Army I was taught that you look after your men before you look after yourself. This country is facing a crisis, with raging inflation and a probable lack of confidence overseas in our currency in the Autumn. This Bill will not create confidence overseas in our currency or create the right climate of opinion among ordinary people in this country to bring about a sound economy.

Mr. Hooson: I should be more impressed with the hon. Member's adherence to this doctrine if he had spoken


up when we were increasing the remuneration of hon. Members and Cabinet Ministers, when we had control over our own destiny, not someone else's destiny.

Sir D. Glover: One may have a drink and someone may say, "That is enough". One may have another drink and someone may say, "That is enough". And the time comes when one realises that it is true. In view of the economic situation, the House probably made a mistake when it increased the pay of hon. Members and Cabinet Ministers.

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Member did not say so at the time.

Sir D. Glover: May I make my own speech. The hon. and learned Member who, with the greatest respect, knows the courtesies of the Bar, should not intervene from a recumbent position.
When we made those increases, I voted for them. I take complete responsibility for that. We increased hon. Members' pay to £3,250 a year. The average hon. Member can say that he will have at least £1,000 as genuine expenses. We did not raise the pay from £8,000 to £10,000. We increased the pay of Cabinet Ministers, but not by as much as the Lawrence Committee had recommended. It was the first time that the pay of Cabinet Ministers had been raised for a hundred years. The judges' pay was raised ten years ago.
Because of their incompetence, instead of sending to the House all together the Bills dealing with Members' pay, Cabinet Ministers' pay and judges' pay—they might all have gone through on the nod—the Government sent them to us separately. The atmosphere has changed. The country's difficulties have become much more vivid in people's minds in the last nine months. While it might have been possible to get the Bill through in November, it now sticks in the gullet of the ordinary person. We are having a great drive for moderation in increases of salaries, wages and dividends, and yet this Bill is introduced by the great egalitarian Government, right at the end of the Session, to increase judges' salaries by 25 per cent.
It is doubtful whether the Bill will have all its stages completed this Session. It will not do so if hon. Members opposite continue their campaign. The Bill highlights

the differences between one increase and another, makes the Chief Secretary's position more and more difficult and Aubrey Jones' position almost impossible. Yet here we are, debating this in about the last seven days of the Session before we break off for the summer Recess.
I am not speaking in terms of squalid arrangements or anything of that kind, but at that particular time we could have made an increase in judges' salaries without it becoming a political and economic fact of life, so to speak. Hon. and right hon. Members may try to laugh it off, but what we are doing by this Bill is driving a coach and four through everything the First Secretary of State is trying to do. We are making it almost impossible for anyone overseas to believe that we are really trying to control our economy. But, on the other hand—perhaps this is most important of all—we are showing by our opposition to the Bill that Parliament does not consider itself bound by any agreement not come to openly in discussion on the Floor of the House, and we do not regard ourselves in one Parliament as bound by the decisions of our colleagues in a previous Parliament.
I am surprised that my hon. Friends do not realise that there is a constitutional point here. We had a great battle over Burmah Oil, but this is a far more important issue than that. I never thought that I should support the hon. Member for West Ham, North, but Parliament is a strange place and one finds oneself, on this issue or that, with some unexpected colleagues. On this issue, I support the hon. Gentleman with great sincerity.
Will the Government say categorically whether they are bringing in this Measure in opposition to the views expressed by the previous Government—they made their opposition to the Conservative Government clear enough twelve months ago—or are they bringing it in because they had some sort of private agreement with the previous Government?

Sir Edward Boyle: I think that I am the only member of the previous Cabinet present at this moment. This talk about a private agreement in the last Parliament is, with respect, rather nonsense. As I understood it, what happened was that the Lord Chancellor of the day made a general statement, without any figures


attached, in another place. I cannot believe that this raises any major constitutional issue. That sort of thing has been done before, and, with great respect, it does not bear on the Amendment, which relates to how great the increase ought to be—something entirely separate from the general statement which the then Lord Chancellor made.

Sir D. Glover: With respect to my right hon. Friend, the question whether there should be an increase at all is directly relevant to the Amendment. I am not criticising my right hon. Friend or his colleagues in the previous Cabinet. The present Government's argument is that this Measure would not have been brought in at this time if they had not entered into some commitment. All I am saying is that one Government or Parliament cannot enter into commitments which bind the next. I do not consider myself bound, and I do not imagine that anyone who was in the previous Parliament considers himself bound. We have complete freedom as our consciences dictate on this issue because we are a new sovereign Parliament elected in October, 1964. Even if I voted in the wrong Lobby in the last Parliament, this is a new Parliament, and I have been re-elected. I can now vote the opposite way. [Laughter.] Of course I can. This is the whole basis of elections. It may be that during the election I had arguments with my constituents—

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: On a point of order. Is not this Amendment about the amount of the increase? Is not the hon. Member out of order?

The Chairman: The hon. Member went grossly out of order. The Chair would call him to order. He must link with the Amendment the story of his exploits during the election.

Sir D. Glover: During the General Election—and this is the point I want to make to the hon. Member—I made no pledge, implied or otherwise, that I would support any legislation to increase the judges' remuneration by 3½ per cent., 5 per cent., 10 per cent., 25 per cent., or any other greater or lesser amount. I made no such pledge at all. That is

what I mean by saying that Members here now come here with a clean slate to debate the problem as we think fit at the time it arises. That is why we have elections. If we are bound—

The Chairman: I think the hon. Member has discussed the constitutional point long enough. He has established, if there was doubt in anyone's mind, that he is free to vote for or against this Amendment.

Sir D. Glover: Coming, as a result of your fine judgment, Dr. King, to this Amendment, I am sorry to tell the hon. Gentleman that I would not vote for this Amendment if it went to a Division—not on the basis of the Amendment, but on the basis, of which he will be aware, that there is a later Amendment in my own name. I do not enter into all the criticisms which have been made about the judges. I believe that we should take great pride in the fact that our judiciary in this country is respected more perhaps than that of any other in the world. I think we should protect that position with the greatest care. I do not accept what an hon. Member opposite said about comparing 10 bob or £10 and so on. I think the judges' remuneration is important in the long run. I would not in normal conditions oppose a rise in judges' remuneration. What I do oppose is the timing of this Bill, and at a later stage—

The Chairman: The hon. Member must reserve his remarks on time and date until we come to the appropriate Amendments.

Sir D. Glover: Dr. King, I do apologise. This is a very narrow point, and it is very difficult to keep in order.
I shall oppose this Amendment if it goes to a Division because I do not think it is doing what I want to achieve. I am not hostile to the aims of the Bill. I am hostile to the timing. Therefore, if we divide, I shall vote against the Amendment.

The Attorney-General: I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), for whom I have a very great respect indeed—and, indeed, admiration for his sincerity and eloquence—should think I dismiss lightly the problems which this debate gives rise to and this Bill gives rise to. Like him,


I deeply regret that the judiciary have become involved in Parliamentary debate and to a slight extent in party political difference. It is regrettable, and I am sure that the judges regret it more than my hon. Friend.
Let us just consider for a moment how the matter comes to pass. I accept most willingly the apology and regret that I misunderstood a later observation of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). We want to be fair about this, because if this Committee cannot be fair to the judiciary we shall get into very bad trouble.
Let us consider for a moment the relationship between the House and the judiciary. We pass laws in the House, but it is the judges who interpret them. Without a fearless, able, and independent judiciary, the power of the House and the Government of the country could well be undermined, because we rely on the judges to interpret the Acts that we pass and to apply them properly and fairly.
The matter arises as an issue of Parliamentary debate in this way. As has been pointed out by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), the salaries of judges are fixed by Parliament. Judges, Ministers, and Members of Parliament are the only salary earners whose salaries are so fixed. In 1954 this House, for the first time for 120 years, decided that the salaries of the judges ought to be raised to £8,000 from £5,000. There was then an increase of 50 per cent. It was a proposal that was moved by Sir Winston Churchill, and supported enthusiastically by the then Leader of the Labour Party, Mr. Attlee. That was the assessment that the House of Commons then made seriously of what a High Court judge ought to be paid, bearing in mind his responsibility, the relationshmip between his salary and what could be earned by new entrants to the Bench, in the professions, and in commerce and industry, the relationship between that salary and the lower judiciary, and other factors of that kind.
In 1954 the House decided that £8,000 was the right figure. What has happened since then? Since then the cost of living has gone up 42 per cent. This has resulted in a very substantial reduction in the standard of living of the judges. They

alone of all salary earners in this country have had no increase in salary for 11 years. That is the position.

Mr. Hale: They have had an increase in pension.

The Attorney-General: I shall come to pensions in a moment. I do not want to run away from that point. They alone have had no increase in salary in the course of the last 11 years, and this Bill takes effect in the twelfth year.
Representing, as I do, a working-class constituency, I know that the working folk of this country who are on low earnings have a formidable case for an increase, and so have those in receipt of pensions, but the fact that has to be faced is that judges alone of all salary earners in this country have not had any increase for 12 years. That means that their relative position to everyone else has deteriorated substantially. Salaries generally in this country have gone up 65 per cent., and wages have gone up 59 per cent. in the last 11 years, and therefore the question that has to be faced is this: Is it fair that this arrangement should continue? Does this House, having the responsibility of fixing a fair and proper salary for judges, think that this serious deterioration in their comparative positions should stand?
The Government have given very serious thought to this, and of course this is a Government Measure. I never suggested anything to the contrary during the Second Reading debate, and while there has been commendation of the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) who has now entered the House—

Dame Irene Ward: I have been here a long time.

The Attorney-General: —and has therefore brought herself in order, I find it surprising that she should have thought it proper to accuse me of cowardice in a a letter to The Times. Having that from a lady, one reacts slightly differently from how one would react to such an accusation from a member of one's own sex. I will give her an opportunity to intervene if she wishes to, although she could have done so in that debate if she had wanted to instead of whipping off a letter to The Times.
I made it perfectly clear that the Government feels that the Bill is right in the circumstances, and it is true that the previous Administration thought so, too, although the terms were not then spelled out, and it is open to the present Parliament to decide upon it. There is no question of a constitutionally binding agreement; indeed, it is a nonsensical suggestion. As I said on the Second Reading of the Bill—and I repeat it now—the Government are satisfied, for reasons which I will develop shortly in a moment, that it is a proper and justifiable Measure.

Dame Irene Ward: Might I first of all say that I am not in the habit of discussing judges, about whom I really know nothing, and therefore I gave great thought to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech before I "whipped off" my letter to The Times.
What I was trying to convey to the right hon. and learned Gentleman was that he spent the whole of the time trying to suggest that it was a Conservative Government's decision about the judges, and I was very surprised that he did not, if I am correct, ever refer to the part that I as an ordinary, weak back bench Member—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Unversed in the ways of judges as I am, I did not ever hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman say anything about the Lord Chancellor, who must have played a large part in perparing and advocating the Bill that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now introducing.

The Attorney-General: I can only assume, if the hon. Lady was in the debate, that she was temporarily not paying attention when I was speaking, or that the process of stating the facts is an intellectual effort beyond her comprehension. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I made it perfectly clear in the debate what the arguments were, and I will now try briefly to repeat them.
I have said that there has been a deterioration of 42 per cent. I am sorry to have this exchange with the hon. Lady, for whom I have had affection throughout the years. I notice she has sought the protection of the other side of the Bar. She really does not have to do that.
Let me come to the issue. That some increase was justifiable and right, I submit is true beyond doubt. The question is, how much? It is suggested in the Amendment that we are immediately discussing that it should be limited to 3½ per cent. What are the facts? The proposed increase is an increase from £8,000 to £10,000. That represents, since the last increase in 1954, an increase per annum of 1·9 per cent. There has been no increase since then, and my hon. Friends may well think that any trade union organiser who was responsible for a group of salary or wage earners and who could not produce a better result than that would have been sacked a long time ago.
The real matter that the Committee has to consider now is, is the increase fair in the circumstances? Does it, comparatively speaking, maintain the position of the judges?
There is a further matter for the serious consideration of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West has spoken with eloquence about the high quality of the judiciary. Others have said that we enjoy an incorruptible Bench and an independent Bench. It is an important matter. It has been drawn from the Bar, and my noble and learned Friend is now of the view that a situation has been reached where the financial inducements now offered are inadequate to attract to the Bench the best of the Bar. If that is so, the House may well think that is a serious situation.
Up to now, broadly speaking, the Bench has been manned by the best of the Bar and I am happy to join in the tribute which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hertfordshire, East paid to the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division whose standing as a leading divorce silk of course qualified him for that appointment. We have reached the position where it is certainly not so that the best of the Bar are being attracted to the Bench; on the contrary, there is an indication to the opposite effect.
12 m.
Therefore, the Committee must decide what is to be done about this. Is it proper that there should be this comparatively modest increase which, I underline, will not restore the Bench, in


relation to other professions and other earnings, to the position which it had in 1954? As I have said, there has been an increase in the cost of living of 42 per cent. since then. This salary increase constitutes an increase of 25 per cent. Accordingly, the Government have taken the view, which was previously taken by their predecessors, that in the circumstances it is right and proper to undertake this increase.
Were it not for the particular machinery of higher judicial salaries being resolved by Act of Parliament, there is little doubt that this would have been dealt with in the same way as the salaries of county court judges have been dealt with in recent years—three increases since 1954 and now tied to the salaries of the higher Civil Service, linking them in turn to changes in the cost of living. That machinery has resulted in the gradual increase of their salaries to keep pace with the rise in the cost of living.
Accordingly, while of course I appreciate the sincerity of my hon. Friends, I know that they will tell trade unionists and workers the facts about this matter—that we are in the presence of an increase of 1·9 per cent. as against the norm of 3½ per cent.; that it does not infringe the salaries policy but is faithful to that policy, and that it is a proposal which is fair in all the circumstances of the case to a section of the community whose standing and whose independence and whose position are the very foundation of the liberty of every one of us.

Mr. Michael Foot: I am extremely disappointed by the speech of the Attorney-General, but before referring to it I want to comment on the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) and other hon. Members who have compared these circumstances with the pay of Members of Parliament and who have said that we should reject the Amendment because of that comparison. It is most improper that such comparisons should be made, because they are extremely inappropriate, as will be agreed by anyone who studies the matter for a moment.
I have been a Member of Parliament on and off for about 20 years, and I can truthfully say that throughout the

whole of that period, except for the last few months after the last increase, I would certainly not have been able to discharge my duties in the manner which I thought appropriate if I had not been able to earn some other money by other means. That does not apply to the judges and never did. The judges have a full-time job and are not able to draw other incomes, and it is most misleading to anyone outside Parliament to compare their salaries with those of Members of Parliament. I hope that such a comparison will be repudiated by every hon. Member. I am therefore surprised that the Attorney-General should have made the comparison and that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery should also have made it.

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman must not misquote me. I said that there was no analogy between judges and hon. Members, but there was between judges and Cabinet Ministers, which is a different point.

Mr. Foot: If we can dispose of this altogether, I shall be glad. I hope that nobody else will make the comparison.
I have no hesitation in defending the increase that was given to Members of Parliament anywhere in the country, on any platform, at any time, because I believe that Members of Parliament have been grossly underpaid in all the previous period since Members have been paid at all. It is shocking to compare them with judges, who in the main have been grossly overpaid throughout the whole period. Therefore, the comparison has no connection with whether we should limit the increases as proposed in the Amendment.
Moreover, there is the second comparison that the proposal for increases in the salaries of Members of Parliament was recommended by a Commission which had been set up to examine the whole matter. No such case has occurred with the judges. There has been no commission recommending this increase. Therefore, the Bill cannot be compared in any sense with the increases that were made for Members of Parliament.
Members of Parliament should have no compunction in saying that we must discuss this matter on its merits. The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) suggested that there might have


been a package deal with the salaries of Members of Parliament going through with increases for judges if it had all been done at the same time. Indeed, there have been suggestions in the newspapers that there may have been some bargain in this respect. I repudiate any such suggestion of any such bargain in exactly the words which were used by the late Sir Winston Churchill when Prime Minister in 1954 at the time when he proposed an increase for judges. He went out of his way to repudiate in the firmest possible manner any suggestion that there could possibly be any kind of bargain of increasing the salaries of Members of Parliament and those of judges at the same time or by some common arrangement.
Sir Winston Churchill said:
Anything of that nature would cast a slur on the long-established reputation of the House of Commons. … Any hon. Member would, I am sure, do less than justice to himself if he allowed it to be said, even jocularly, that he would bargain one Measure off against the other. I am sure we shall get through our difficulties, and they are fairly obvious, by allowing no thought to govern our judgment except what is in the best interest of the State and the highest performance of our duty in each particular case."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1954; Vol. 525, c. 1057–58.]
I hope, therefore, that any comparison with the salaries of Members of Parliament will be outlawed from this debate henceforth.
The Attorney-General, echoing what had been said by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East, said that it was most regrettable that this matter should have to be debated at some length in the House of Commons and that judges' salaries should be a subject for discussion. I do not think that it is as regrettable as all that. I do not see why their salaries should not be discussed as much as anybody else's.
There has been a great deal of discussion about the salaries of Members of Parliament throughout the country. I do not complain about the discussion—everybody is entitled to discuss it—but the idea is conveyed that it is, somehow, indecent to discuss the payment that is made to judges, that they are a kind of separate race and that we should not discuss what is paid to them. Everybody is entitled to know what is going on. If

there is any responsibility for the extensive discussion of this matter which is bound to take place, it rests upon the Government.
It is because of the timing of this Measure partly and because of the manner in which it is introduced that many of us have insisted upon full discussion. If we had permitted this Measure to go through without the most detailed discussion, the suspicions in the country would be considerable. I can illustrate that presently by quoting from reputable authorities which, I am sure, would be accepted by the Attorney-General.
First, however, let me deal with another point made by the Attorney-General. He compared this occasion with the 1954 assessment. The foundation of his argument is that all that we are doing in a very modest manner is to bring up the judges' salaries to roughly the assessment which was considered proper in 1954. That is not the case at all. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has pointed out, there has been a considerable increase in the judges' pensions since then, which adds to their salaries. Everybody else would have assumed that to be the case. Therefore, it is not the case that there has not been an alteration in their position since 1954. When the Attorney-General tries to persuade us that that is the position, it is not so.
Moreover—I know that this applies to some other people in the country, but it is a factor if we are talking about the hard cash which people have in their hands—judges have benefited from some of the other measures which have been passed over the last ten years. I imagine that they benefited considerably from the release of Surtax payment and that a considerable sum of money was put into their pockets. Others had the advantage, too, but it must not be suggested that the position of judges has been steadily worsening over the years. It is not the case. They had the same improvements which had been made for many sections of the population, partly owing to measures which we on this side of the Committee opposed, but that does not alter the fact that they had the improvements.
There is an even more important point than that. This was quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) in the debate on Second


Reading. If the Attorney-General intended to deal with the matter, he should have replied to this point. When Sir Winston Churchill asked the House of Commons to agree to the proposal that we should make the increase which we made in 1954, he did not come to the House and say: "We shall make this assessment now and assume that, in the years ahead, judges should be dealt with on the same basis as other sections of the community, that there should be increases every two years." He said the opposite. He said, in effect, "If we make this settlement now, I do not say that there will never be a change in the next hundred years, but we shall assume that there will be no change for, at any rate, a generation."
The quotation was read out by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool. Therefore, the assumption of the House of Commons in 1954 was not that judges would henceforth receive annual increments, as other people were receiving them, but that this settlement was being made for a considerable period ahead—[Interruption]—"Probably a generation" were the actual words. I could quote them, but my hon. Friend has already done so.
I am complaining that the Attorney-General quoted in aid the 1954 assessment, without giving the House the facts about it and without replying to the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool had made on the matter. It is not the case that, when the Government considered the matter, they could have said to themselves, "We have to do it in order to see that the judges are brought up to the situation provided in 1954." It was not accepted by the House of Commons in 1954 that that should be the arrangement. Those of us who are criticising this Measure are much more in accordance with the position of the House of Commons in 1954 than the present Government are.
My right hon. and learned Friend then says that this is a Government Measure, and that the Government introduce it on their own responsibility. We all know that, constitutionally that is the case, but if the Government's claim is that they are doing this purely on its merits, they have put themselves into a very difficult situation. On its merits, if we are discussing whether this is the

right figure to pay the judges we have every right to discuss this matter at considerable length. There are members of the Government, I am sure, who would agree with me on these matters, because some of the present members of the Government participated in the Committee proceedings when we discussed the Judges' Remuneration Bill in 1954.
In a speech made by a member of the Cabinet—I leave it to the imagination of hon. Members to determine for themselves, or to guess if they wish, who it was—made on the question on its merits, there occur the words:
In discussing salaries of this magnitude"—
this is when they had the increase of 1954—
in connection with judges and the Law Officers of the Crown, we are forced into our present position by the gross over-payment of those who practise the law. All lawyers are grossly over-paid. Relatively speaking, solicitors are also over-paid. It is disgraceful that the practice of the law attracts such extravagant rewards.
The Speaker said:
What are most lawyers doing?
to which Sir Herbert Williams intervened:
Everybody."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1954; Vol. 525, c. 1683.]
That was the standard of debate ten years ago.
The speaker on that occasion was a member of the present Cabinet, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I have no doubt that he has represented these same views in the discussions which the Cabinet have had on this matter. If we are discussing the question on its merits, no member of the Government can say that we have not powerful allies. If the Government are saying that, apart from any previous commitment and apart from any statement made by the Lord Chancellor, they are introducing the Measure on its merits, then it is part of our claim that the overwhelming majority of my hon. Friends cannot understand it on that basis. If there was no commitment at all, if—just out of the blue—this was decided, then what is the urgency? Why cannot the Government postpone it—

12.15 a.m.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must leave the question of urgency until we discuss the appropriate Amendment.

Mr. Foot: I apologise, Dr. King, if I went astray. I realise that this matter would be more appropriate on a later Amendment.
The Amendment suggests that the scale of salaries proposed should be limited. That would be one way by which the Government could make a concession to the strong opinion that has been expressed on the Bill. There are other methods, some of which we will discuss later, such as the time when the Bill will come into operation.
It appeared from the speech of the Attorney-General—in the first intervention he has made in the Committee—that he reiterated the general case which he made on Second Reading for these full increases. He gave no indication that he was proposing to make any concession at all. I hope very much that the Government will not take that attitude on this question. It would be only proper for the Government to take into account the opinions which have been and are being strongly expressed by hon. Members.
Earlier the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East spoke about public opinion on this issue. I agree that we should make up our own minds, irrespective of what might be outside opinion on the matter. However, it is of some interest to note what outside opinion claims. A leading article in The Guardian this morning recalls the opposition to the Measure which was expressed on Second Reading. It refers to the fact that
… the House showed an altogether understandable impatience".
It goes on to ask a series of questions which should be answered before the Measure is allowed to go through—and so far we have not had any attempt by the Government to answer these questions.
We believe that the introduction of a Measure of this kind, at this time, by the hugger-mugger process which has been employed to do it is something that must arouse the protests of the House of Commons. If we were to say that a Bill of this sort—which, as we believe, had not been justified on its merits, which was not necessary on any ground we have so far heard and which, as far as we can see, could only be

justified on the basis of a private commitment which, we are told, does not exist—can go through just like that, we would be failing in our duty.
I hope, therefore, that the Government will still carefully consider the representations that are being made. I hope that they will not think it right to rigidly drive through a Measure like this, insisting that every Clause as originally introduced must be accepted. If they do insist on every item of the Bill as originally proposed it will be the assumption that the whole Measure had been decided before it was brought to us. If that is the case, it is a most reprehensible state of affairs. I therefore trust that the Government will respond to the opinion of the Committee, particularly the almost overwhelming opinion that has been expressed by back bench supporters of the Government.

Mr. Abse: I have listened very carefully to the Attorney-General. I find it as chastening and sad, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), that I have to be so completely in conflict with the view presented by my right hon. and learned Friend. He has not presented any fresh argument why special consideration should be afforded to the judges on this occasion to justify their getting a payment which is estimated now to be clearly well above the 3½ per cent.
The first argument presented by the Attorney-General is that it is, in fact, only a 1·9 per cent. increase; that that is the compound rate. He must know that this suggestion that there should be an increase ranging between 25 per cent. and 40 per cent., in some cases, is in total breach of a clear understanding between the judiciary and the legislature, because that is a point that has to be faced.
When this matter came before the House in 1954, the words of Sir Winston Churchill were clear and unequivocal, and it is no use trying to dodge them. There was an understanding, and it was upon that understanding that the House decided to give a substantial increase. The understanding was given in Sir Winston Churchill's own words, and it was that
… there should at any rate be a fairly long period, perhaps a generation, before what


we now decide shall be altered, except by tax reduction"—
and here let me interpolate that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has said, there has been such a tax reduction:
so that those discharging these high functions, who have their whole lives to live within strict and rigid limits, should have a reasonable basis on which to work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1954; Vol. 525, c. 1061.]
I want the Attorney-General to address his mind to this part of the argument: what does he consider is a "fairly long period, perhaps a generation"? It could not have been less than ten years, otherwise why should it be qualified by the words "perhaps a generation"? If he then works out the sum, if it started last year, or starts this year, can he honestly suggest to the House that what in fact the judges are receiving is merely a 1·9 per cent. increase? It cannot be acceptable.
I am not churlish in my attitude to what the judges should earn, or their value. Everything I say is said against the background of the present economic situation. I will emphasise that I think it very wrong that those who have to give leadership, those who have, and should have, great respect, should give the appearance that they are expecting different rules to apply to them. Those who administer justice must be seen themselves to be acting in a just way, and a deplorable impression can be made on ordinary folk if they believe that those in high and powerful positions abuse those positions—and, perhaps, abuse their power.
What was the Attorney-General's second argument. He suggested on Second Reading, and has elaborated on it a little this evening, that the Lord Chancellor has reason to believe that existing judicial salaries are insufficient to make certain of attracting the best of the Bar to the Bench. The truth is, is it not, that there always have been enormous differentials between the amount that could be earned at the Bar and the salaries of the judges?
Indeed, if we turn back the pages and learn of the astronomical figures which were earned by the great leaders of the Bar in pre-war years, when taxation was not anything like what it is today, it is highly probable that the differential

between those leaders and the judges was far, far higher than it could possibly be today; that is if one looks at the net figure. I notice that hon. Members opposite nod agreement because it is a fact. Would they also agree that that did not deter those leading luminaries of the Bar from seeking judicial positions? Nor, judging from the quality or calibre of the present members of the judiciary, do I think that that consideration is operating today.
There have always been differentials and the status which a judge has, and the great respect in which he is held by the whole nation, is prized more than anything which any advocate, however outstanding, can attain at the Bar. So I say, we cannot be impressed by what I would call this differential argument advanced by the learned Attorney-General.
What was his third argument? He suggested that there should be no question of it being a three-and-a-half per cent. increase. It was, he said—and this, I thought, was the weakest of the arguments which he used during the second reading of the Bill—essential that these salaries should be settled at a figure which would not downgrade the status of the judges in the community. We are a status-ridden nation today, according to what we are told; and I find it an extraordinarily vulgar argument. I am very surprised to hear it from so sophisticated an Attorney-General as we have today. Perhaps money may be a matter of status in the "Jag belt", but it is hardly the sort of status we should expect to be a normality within the legal profession.
We do not compare ourselves as Members of Parliament with film stars or "pop" singers; those people may require huge salaries in order to have status, but I do not accept that such a materialistic and vulgar attitude is adopted by men who have entered into the service of the law. That is a dedication, and people have not entered the law any more than people have entered Parliament, in order to make money. That is left, as it should be, to tycoons who want to acquire companies; and perhaps some other people, but it is not the spur which brings people into this House and it is not the spur which brings people to the top of the Bar or on to the Bench.
A special case cannot be made for the judges to have this astronomical increase on that basis. I repeat what I said on the Second Reading of the Bill; that the calibre of the judges does not depend on cheque books. The right hon. and learned Member who intervened spoke at some length of the attitude which should be required of everybody towards the judiciary. With that, I agree, but what is most unfortunate and deplorable is that because of the method and technique by which this Bill has become before the House, it is becoming increasingly apparent as the debate goes on that the charism of the judiciary is being affected. Surely there should be some regard and even awe for the judiciary, but it does not obtain it because of the salaries awarded to its members. It is obtained by the manner and the method by which justice is administered.
12.30 a.m.
It is a great pity that all this started from a belief, not of hardship, but in a straightforward differential dispute. The Attorney-General has asked us to look back. If we ask ourselves what was the commitment of the last Government, we find that this question prompted the reply in 1954. The commitment about which we hear so much was this. In another place the Lord Chancellor was asked whether judges of the Supreme Court in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland had no increase in salaries since 1954 while the salaries of those in the lower judiciary had been increased on three, and in some cases four, occasions since that date. He was asked whether Her Majesty's Government would take the necessary action to increase those salaries. The Lord Chancellor replied:
My Lords, the answer is Yes. It is the Government's intention …"—
the last Government's intention—
to introduce next Session legislation to provide for increases in the remuneration of the Superior Judiciary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 24th March, 1964; Vol. 256, c. 1130.]
This arose out of a differentials dispute. It arose because, according to what the Lord Chancellor said last year, because apparently there was a feeling among the higher judiciary that their differentials were closing in. It does not reflect to their credit. Our great danger is that

we may be living in a Poujadiste society. At a time when hon. Members are addressing themselves to this Amendment we must always have in mind the economic difficulties which afflict the nation. It ill becomes the mentors of society to act like a group of Poujadistes.
Who is making this demand? Where does it come from? Why is there this compulsion and urgency that at this time in the morning we have to decide that judges must have this amount? We would be naive not to believe that pressure has been applied. When we ask whether we should yield to that pressure and whether, there should be a 3½ per cent. increase, we are entitled to ask what are the motives for pushing this forward? Although the Attorney-General referred to the cost of living, which affects everyone, he on no occasion suggested that judges are suffering and enduring hardship. Despite what was said on Second Reading, is it still urged on behalf of the judges that the Government must go on with this. Are they still insisting on it? Do they not appreciate that they are provoking a most unfortunate situation?
My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has appealed for second thoughts. It would be in the interests of the judges that there should be second thoughts, not only in the interests of the general economic situation. I can understand the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East having some sqeamishness about the fact that judges' salaries are discussed in this way. Some of the legal profession's etiquette has brushed off even on to me. I realise that perhaps my hon. Friend does not perhaps feel that, but he has expressed it. I do not find it pleasant to have to have a debate of this kind because I understand as a matter of taste that the right hon. and learned Member has diffidence about such open discussion.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I think that the hon. Gentleman's point of view and mine are the same, because although I expressed that view I also said that constitutionally I fully accepted that it must be discussed, since it was subject to an Act of Parliament.

Mr. Abse: I am obliged. I still think that it could be discussed in happier circumstances. Much of the difficulty which has arisen will continue to arise if the


Government seek to force the Bill through in this form at this time. There is a fifth argument. It has been a curious argument. It is the suggestion that in some way we have no alternative because we are bound. The extraordinary thing is that, although we have had a Second Reading and although we have now had hours of debate, we still do not know whether there was a binding commitment by this Government when they were in opposition. On Second Reading the Attorney-General made a vigorous and belligerent attack upon Members of the former Government and suggested that they were in breach of the understanding. He suggested that they were ratting. This may very well be true. If, as is abundantly clear, there is an overwhelming back bench opinion in this party that this is most inappropriate at the moment, what is the compulsion which is driving the Attorney-General? Is he afraid, or is anybody else afraid, that he would be regarded as being in breach of an agreement? Was there, or was there not, an understanding between certain members of the then Opposition and the former Government?
If the suggestion is that we are bound because the establishment, which is not a myth, has decided that this must be the case, that is not a palatable argument for me or for many hon. Members. The confusion over this agreement, the miasma with which it is surrounded, the ambiguity—everything seems to point to the fact that there is something tacit if there is not something overt. Everything seems to point to the fact that there are loyalties which are not loyalties as we understand them between Members of Parliament and their constituencies or the legislature. It is because of the suspicion that forces outside the House of Commons, forces which are not being articulate, are attempting to manipulate Parliament that many of us feel that we cannot possibly support the suggestion that these salaries have to be increased in the manner which the Attorney-General has urged.
This is an Amendment to which I am speaking and not one which I must necessarily support in its particular terms. The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) suggested that the work of judges was incapable of assessment in terms of productivity.

I shall resist the temptation on this Amendment to answer that, because I think I should be out of order. There are other Amendments on which I hope I shall be able to answer the point raised by the Attorney-General and others and show how productivity could be increased. That aspect is not in the Bill, although it could be. All that has been said in support of the Bill so far seeks to emphasise that the Bill is being forced upon us by forces outside the normal sources.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: We have heard impassioned speeches tonight from those who are in favour of the Amendment. We have also heard reasoned arguments against the Amendment. I hope it will not be considered inappropriate if I say a few words in support of those who will abstain. This problem has been raised far above what it merits. The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) has made suggestions about shadows working behind the scenes. We have had implications that great pressures were applied and the suggestion that great constitutional problems are involved. None of the arguments has convinced me and I hope that in putting forward my objections I shall bring the matter into perspective.
The Attorney-General put forward an argument which was intolerably shaky on all accounts. His main argument concerned the amount of the increase. He said that compared with industry the average was a 1·9 per cent. increase and that if trade union leaders had to tell their membership that they had only achieved that increase they would not keep their jobs for very long. This is a ridiculous argument. I have been negotiating wage rates for years in the shipyards which the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) mentioned. When we discuss wages there we think of one year with another in the clear knowledge that next year or even within six months there will be a change. The great difference here is that when judges' salaries were fixed in 1954 those concerned were not thinking of a year but of fixing a level which would last for a long time.

Mr. Hale: I suggested to the Attorney-General that he had forgotten to remind the Committee that in 1959 a special


Measure to deal with judges' pensions was introduced. When I interrupted him and reminded him that he had not yet reached that point in his speech he said that he was coming to it, but he has not yet arrived. It is important because under that Measure the pension went up to £4,000. This is a relevant point.

The Attorney-General: May I interrupt the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale)? The question of pensions comes up at a later stage of discussion of the Bill.

Mr. Hale: I will be most grateful if the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart will give way again and allow me to make the point that we are endeavouring to discuss the question of whether judges should have an increase on the basis of two statements by the Attorney-General that they have not had an increase since 1954. On the whole question of an increase it is relevant to take into account the fact that they had substantial increases in pension in 1959 to which my right hon. Friend has made no reference at all and about which he has been rather coy.

Mr. Taylor: It was a completely fallacious argument to talk in terms of a 1·9 per cent. increase. The whole point in the debate in 1954 was that it was being made clear that a salary appropriate for a considerable time to come was being fixed. Even a generation was spoken about, and to talk now of ten years is ridiciulous.

The Attorney-General: Does the hon. Member think that the Administration in 1954 contemplated that in eleven years' time the cost of living would have gone up by 42 per cent.?

Mr. Taylor: This is an even more ridiculous argument. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that between 1945 and 1951 the cost of living went up by 6½ per cent. per year. After that it went up on an average by 4½ per cent. per year and in the last six years of Conservative rule it went up by 2½ per cent. Instead of going up at the same rate it increased far less than could reasonably have been anticipated. I will not say why that happened. But to suggest

that the Government could not anticipate an increase in the cost of living is ludicrous, especially when the increase in fact was not as great as might have been expected in 1954.
12.45 a.m.
In another place it was said that the previous Administration had it in mind to increase these salaries. I was not in the House at the time, but many hon. Members who were in the House could not have been aware of this intention. Certainly as a humble candidate working in a Glasgow seat, I was not consulted. I did not know about it. But in any event, surely it is for the present Government to decide what they think is the appropriate action, taking all the circumstances into account. They say that they have done so and that they are considering the matter on its merits. But I feel that the case put forward by the Attorney-General does not stand. I cannot accept it at all and I cannot support him.
On the other hand we have the arguments in favour of the Amendment, and I am in a difficulty because I cannot support them either. There were two main arguments in support of the Amendment. One was that there is no need for this increase because we have an adequate supply of judges and plenty of other people would be willing to take any vacancies which arose. It has been argued that in practice at the Bar those who may later become judges can earn as much as this and more. I am sure that that is true. But that is not an argument for the proposition that there is a danger that we should not attract the best people to become judges because in my view those people will continue to accept these positions. They feel that they are in positions in which they can use the talent, initiative and service which they are willing to give.
My argument, however, is this: is it right to take advantage of the commitment to public service which potential judges undoubtedly have in order to give them less remuneration than they would receive if they remained at the Bar? Surely that is a scandalous proposition. The same argument could be made about Members' salaries. If the salary of a Member of Parliament were £500 or £200, there would still be plenty of people willing to come here because they felt that


there was a job to be done. Many people have a commitment to public service. Some could not afford to come here, but many would come here. Are we to suggest that we should take advantage of such people who can give this service on the cheap? I cannot accept that argument in any circumstances.
Another argument, advanced in particular by the hon Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), who made a splendid speech, was that £12,000 was a large sum of money for anyone to earn. We are constantly hearing figures like this, which appear to be outrageous when expressed in weekly and hourly terms and compared with the earnings of shipyard workers. But the right way to consider these figures is to take net earnings after tax, say, for a married man with two children. Looked at in that way they do not appear to be nearly as ridiculous as has been suggested.
The problem has been presented as one of constitutional importance, which I feel it is not. I shall therefore abstain. I feel that many hon. Members opposite have been annoyed by many of the things which their Government are doing. It is significant that many of the hon. Members opposite who have spoken to the Amendment have from the same benches been making the same kind of speeches criticising other aspects of Government policy. They have here taken a small item, perhaps of no great constitutional significance—one which certainly will not bring the Government down—in order to express their annoyance and regret at policies which the Government have been putting forward. If they wish to make clear their belief that the Government are not following the correct path to Socialism, this is not the kind of issue on which to make that case. We have seen the anger, vindictiveness and real disappointment of some hon. Members, but let them express it not in a case like this and not as a means of getting men to undertake public service on the cheap.

Mr. Tom Driberg: I hope to persuade my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General—or, perhaps, the Solicitor-General, in his absence—to speak again, however briefly, in reply to the numerous speeches which have been made from both sides of the Committee since he last spoke. He did

not deal with several points in his last speech, particularly the point about pensions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). My right hon. and learned Friend thought that this would be more appropriately dealt with at a later stage, but, Sir Samuel, since you and, I think, your predecessor in the Chair allowed the point to be examined at some length, it would be in order, I think, for the Attorney-General to reply on that specific point, since it must be borne in mind in relation to the size of the proposed increase. One cannot consider judges' salaries as a whole without considering whether their pension improvements have affected their general financial position. Clearly, it is relevant to this Amendment as well as to others which may follow.
From what we have been told, it seems that this is part of the legacy, or hangover, bequeathed to this Government by the last. The worst legacy that this Government inherited was, of course, the acute economic and financial crisis. It would have been perfectly reasonable, when this new approach or reminder of the last Government's views or intentions on this matter reached the present Government, for them to have said, "We may sympathise with that view, and we may have said so privately in the past, but at this time when we are calling for the greatest restraint on all sides, we are asking workers not to ask for more than a 3½ per cent. increase, and so on, it would be extremely difficult to justify granting these very substantial increases".
I hope that the Government will respond to the appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) to think again about this matter. I do not know whether the judges usually read the Commons HANSARD, but it might be a good idea if the Attorney-General were to send copies of tomorrow's HANSARD by special messenger to the various judges concerned—if he can afford to do so, after the increases in the cost of special messengers imposed by the Postmaster-General—so that they may read the debate at their leisure during the weekend. I am sure that these high-minded men, as we have been repeatedly told they are, will be so embarrassed by this discussion that they will unanimously refuse to accept the proposed increase.
I see that my right hon. and learned Friend has just returned to his place. I have just asked him if he would seriously reconsider this matter and consult the judges again in the light of tonight's debate, because if all we have heard about the splendid public spirit, integrity, general spirituality and what not of the judiciary is correct, I feel sure that at a time of great national stringency they would not wish to be singled out for this gigantic increase.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is my hon. Friend not aware that he is just putting exactly the point which was contained in the Solicitors Journal and in the leading article of last Sunday's Observer and that this is not a left wing revolt?

Mr. Driberg: This is not, of course, a specifically left wing criticism of the Government. I do not think any hon. Member of this Committee, on whichever side he sits, would think, for instance, that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) is an extreme left winger, and it was he, perhaps, who started us all off on this course. Of course it is not a left wing revolt or any nonsense like that. It is a solemn reminder to the Government that we hope for a more egalitarian society and a more egalitarian and democratic approach to this kind of problem.
I was impressed, as always, by the tone and the intelligence of the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney, but as to the content of his argument I could not help feeling—I wish my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department would not distract the learned Attorney by his wit just when I am trying to address him directly. I could not help feeling that the learned Attorney's speech was in content plausible rather than convincing, and I hope that he will not think it too unfair or too demagogic if I say it would not seem more convincing at a trade union conference or a gathering of shop stewards, or at a Labour Party conference, and he knows this as well as I do. I am sorry for him, having to get up and make that sort of speech. I do not blame him personally, of course. This is part of the damnosa hereditas bequeathed to us by the last Tory Government. This Government should

shake off these legacies and not feel obliged automatically to honour whatever commitments were given by the last Government in totally different circumstances.
I thought that my right hon. Friend the learned Attorney did slightly overstate his case when he represented the judiciary as an uniquely underprivileged class of citizens. I cannot think that he really believes it himself. Whether one bears in mind the point about pensions, the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West, which clearly is relevant to this discussion and not only to some future Amendment, or if my right hon. and learned Friend will consider that, after all, there are quite a number of people living on small fixed incomes who certainly have not had a steady increase every year, and, indeed, even accepting his 1·9 per cent. argument—which is, of course, mathematically valid on paper if he ignores the pension aspect referred to by my hon. Friend—even if we accept that argument, would he really say that every worker, every salary earner, every wage earner in this country has had a 1·9 per cent. or more increase every year in the last 11 years? I doubt it very much.
1.0 a.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) referred repeatedly to the charisma of the judiciary. I am not sure that they are all as charismatic as all that. I think that on the whole they are a much better lot then they used to be. Certainly we have a very high regard for the Lord Chief Justice himself, who acquitted himself admirably in another place only this week. On the whole, I think it can fairly be said that the judges now are at any rate a considerably less savage bunch than they were 20, 50, or 100 years ago, just as the bishops are a rather less savage bunch than they were 20, 50 or 100 years ago.

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I think that we are getting away from the question of a 3½ per cent. increase.

Mr. Driberg: Sir Samuel, I am obliged to you for your corrective reminder, and I would, with respect, merely point out that you have allowed almost unlimited praise of the judiciary to flow from my hon. Friends and from hon.


Gentlemen opposite, and I thought that a very mild qualification might also be in order.
I only say in concluding that part of my remarks, and indeed in almost concluding my remarks altogether, that I would not have voted a penny increase in the salary of the judge—now retired, fortunately—who gave a most disgraceful summing-up in the case of Christopher Williams, about whom I have a Question down for answer by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary shortly.
But if it be true, as the Attorney-General argues, that the best of the Bar have always been attracted to the Bench, it seems odd, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool said, to reconcile the argument that these are the noblest and highest minded of mortals with the purely financial argument that they will not be attracted from the Bar to the Bench unless we give them a terrific lot more money. I do not follow that argument. [Interruption.] One of my hon. Friends says that they are only human, but they have been represented as almost superhuman.
We are living, not in a democratic society, but in a hierarchical society of many inequalities. It is, or ought to be, the function and the object of a Labour Government to reduce, not to enhance, or increase, those inequalities. Labour Governments after the war, and this Government also, did, and are doing, their best to reduce inequality by fiscal means. This Bill represents to me one of those quantitative differences that become qualitative differences because they are so extreme. It intensifies the gross inequalities of our society, and that is why I implore the Government to think about it again, and to consult the judges themselves this weekend.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Edward Short): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Edward Short) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause, put, accordingly and agreed to.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I beg to move, Amendment No. 8, Clause 1, in page 1, line 10, after "increased", to insert "or reduced".

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that with that Amendment it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 10, Clause 1, in page 1, line 22, to leave out from "section" to end of line 24, and Amendment No. 11, Clause 1, in page 1, line 22, leave out
but not so as to reduce
and insert "including the reduction of".

Mr. Lewis: I am obliged to you, Sir Samuel.
This Amendment is entirely different from the previous one. Subsection (2) says:
Her Majesty may at any time by Order in Council direct that any of the salaries to which the foregoing subsection applies shall be increased to such amount as may be specified in the Order.
My Amendment is suggesting that, in addition to increasing, the order should be permitted to reduce. We heard on Second Reading and we heard just recently how difficult it has been for the judges. We have heard about the economic situation confronting the country, and that the First Secretary hopes to get the cost of living down. I had hoped that my right hon. Friend would have been here, at least for the last Amendment and this, as they concern him vitally, because, if the Government's policy of getting prices down and reducing the cost of living succeeds, reductions in wages and salaries may be suggested.
On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) spoke of the lobbying of judges in the 1930s, and it was either my hon. Friend or my hon. Friend for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) who said how they came crying and begging, and not only begging but insisting—putting on pressure—that they and they alone of his then Majesty's subjects should not have reductions made in their salaries.
I hope not, but in the autumn we may find ourselves in very serious economic trouble. I shall not argue whether it is the fault of the previous or the present Government, though I am sure where the fault lies. The Geddes axe which fell in the 1930s might fall again if—I was about to say "God forbid", but that would not be Parliamentary—the party opposite returns to office. I think that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has made


that suggestion. Some of the big financiers, some of the big Tory supporters and some big vested interests have already suggested that it would be a good thing to have cuts in wages and salaries.
If the Bill goes through as drafted, it will mean that the judges alone, by Act of Parliament, will be entitled to have their salaries increased but never reduced. That is a deplorable situation. It certainly does not apply to any section of the manual, industrial or technical and administrative workers.
The argument of the Attorney-General about the 1·9 per cent. may be right, though I do not agree with him, but surely he cannot contend that the poor judges, with salaries of £10,000 or £12,000 a year, should for all time be entitled to claim by Act of Parliament that they alone should have legislative rights to maintain their salaries, even if the cost of living should drop by 10, 20 or 30 per cent., or even if the ordinary worker is compelled to take a reduction in his wages or salary.
We ought to be told more about what the judges do for their salary. I am told that, like Members of Parliament, they start at nine o'clock and work for any hours of the day or night. On the other hand, some of my legal friends tell me that that is not so and that they work from ten to four. I am told that they work for every day of the week for every month of the year; but some of my legal friends say that they work for only two or three months of the year.
These honourable and learned and noble judges may feel that they are working too many hours and it might be suggested that their hours are reduced. If it were proposed that their hours should be reduced from 20 to 10 a week, it would not be possible for their salaries to be reduced accordingly and they might work for only one or two months a year and get £10,000 or £12,000 for one or two hours a week.
I have heard it said—and I have not heard it denied—that the Lord Chancellor has said that he will not accept any Amendment to the Bill on pain of resignation. If he wants to resign, let him resign. There are plenty of honourable and legal gentlemen who would do the job at the present salary. However,

he could accept this Amendment which does not cut the salaries of judges. There is no question of any restriction until the next election. After all, the Government did not even have the decency to mention their proposals in the Queen's speech. If the Government are to take power by Order in Council to increase the salaries of judges to any figure they like—and it may be by 40 per cent. and not just 25 per cent. next time—no hon. Member will have the opportunity to suggest that there should be a reduction.
The Amendment is a reasonable and necessary safeguard. We may not always have this great legal reformer, Lord Gardiner, the Lord Chancellor who is such a wonderful man. We may have a Lord Chancellor who is not so good, or even one who is better. Another Lord Chancellor may suggest that the salaries of judges should be reduced because, fortunately, people are becoming better and crime is decreasing and a reduction of salary for less work would be better than putting judges on pension. But there will be no power to do that if the Bill goes through as drafted. I am being helpful and not in any way critical of the Government or Opposition. This little Amendment will give the Government the opportunity to deal with judges on the same sort of basis as the rest of the community.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Robert Maxwell: I rise for two reasons. First, I most certainly agree with most of my hon. Friends who have demonstrated tonight that the rise in judges' salaries is most untimely having regard to the severe economic crisis through which the country is passing. The timing is certainly not very good and, having regard to the circumstances in which the country finds itself, I would rather that the Government had invited the judges to wait a little longer until the economic situation had improved.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has made a great deal about the things he has heard about the Lord Chancellor. I invite him to deal with something that I have heard. That is, that the reason why he has taken up this matter in the way he did has something to do with the Boundary Commission redistribution between East and West Ham—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. J. C. Jennings): Order. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) must keep to the very narrow Amendment. Boundary Commissions and matters pertaining thereto certainly do not come within the Amendment.

Mr. Lewis: May I say to my hon. Friend—

The Temporary Chairman: I understood the hon. Member to be rising to a point of order, not to ask a question.

Mr. Lewis: Will my hon. Friend give way? Without dealing with the point, because I know that it is not in order—

The Temporary Chairman: Is this a point of order?

Mr. Lewis: No.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member first rose to a point of order. Will he state it?

Mr. Lewis: I asked my hon. Friend to give way, Mr. Jennings. He has given way. Without dealing with the point, which, I understand, is out of order, this filthy, malicious rumour which he has at the back of his mind is completely and absolutely untrue, and the Attorney-General—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. This is completely out of order. Mr. Maxwell.

Mr. Maxwell: In view of the statement made by my hon. Friend, I of course withdraw and accept what he has said.

Mr. Lewis: You can tell the Chief Whip as well. I will tell him myself.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Member must conduct himself in a seemly fashion. He has had a good spell.

Mr. Lewis: If you allow filthy—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is out of order in speaking from the Bar. Mr. Maxwell.

Mr. Maxwell: It is, of course, a fact that the judges' salary increases could easily have been postponed. As, how-

ever, the Government have chosen not to postpone them, although I object to the fact that they did not, and certainly the judges could easily afford to have waited a year until the economic situation improved. I think that my hon. Friends are pressing the matter too far by taking so much of the time of the House of Commons in the way they are doing and going over the points time and time again. I appeal to them to call it a day.

Mr. Hale: I have not heard the same points being made time and time again. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) raised a point which, I thought, was important. He raised the point that the Bill provides that if it be passed, the whole question of judges' salaries be committed in future to the Privy Council, who shall be able to make an order increasing their salaries but shall not have power to make an order reducing them. I am bound to say that I have not heard such a proposal before in the 20 years that I have been in Parliament about any people at all. I must say, with very great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell), that I resent an intervention in which, first of all, he tried to open up a scandalous personal attack on the character of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) and then made a general attack on everybody who has taken part in the debate. I tried—and had some tributes from the other side of the Committee when I was trying—to treat this as a serious debate, in which we were unhappy about being compelled.
I say in his absence that I disagreed with much of what my hon. Friend said. I understand why he has retired and I hope he will come back. He has been unjustly treated in this, as I am sure the Attorney-General would agree. I know the sort of reference which was to be made, but scandals should not be brought on to the Floor of the House, when they are demonstrably untrue and when the slightest inquiry would have made clear that they were untrue, without a little trouble to find out whether they are true or not.

The Attorney-General: I have no reason to believe that was was alleged against my hon. Friend was true.

Mr. Hale: I know that, as we all know, the Attorney-General is a gentleman? We knew that he would say that, and that when he says it it is true. The slightest examination of the facts would have made this clear.
I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North for the fact that what I said in his support was in his absence and that what I now say in criticism is in his presence. He is not correct to say that the judges have an easy life. The real trouble in a judge's life is Parliament, which goes on passing fantastic Bills which are incredible, having debates on which Amendments are shoved in at three o'clock in the morning. A judge called upon to administer the law as made by this particular Parliament has a fantastically difficult task. I do not believe that it is true that this is easy.
I have some reservations about divorce, which I cannot go into now without being out of order. I believe that marriage has nothing to do with judges at all, but Parliament committed them the task. It is a private arrangement, and it is scandalous that judges should ask about disclosing names of co-respondents and so on. It is a private matter and the question of whether one enters into a written contract or a formal contract or a religious contract is a matter for the individual conscience. My missus had me tied up by a capable Nonconformist clergyman of excellent character. I went through it with some reluctance and I urged that some other method should be adopted.
I want to say something seriously, and I do not want to joke about this. I have found that the House never could realise the services which an independent judiciary have paid to liberty and the service they have rendered to freedom in trying to ignore the hopeless ignorance of the House in relation to some matters of liberty. In the 20 years that I have been here, the House has been constantly passing Bills trying to pot somebody for something which they do not like. This passion for putting people in prison permeates nearly all legislation. We are hardly able to pass a Bill without creating a new crime. People can now be prosecuted before the courts for throwing a bus ticket in the main street. I got

pinched myself for stopping outside a well-known library and was told that I was not at a loading bay. I have been trying ever since to find out from the Ministry of Transport what a loading bay is.
All these duties are sometimes performed by the lower judiciary, but the higher judiciary have had, running through the whole of their history, two quite contrary trends. The first, of course, was, over the years, their hopeless ignorance about industrial conditions. Every modern judge would admit that their record in relation to matters like volenti non fit injuria and common employment was quite appalling, mainly because most of them were Tory squires who knew nothing about industrial conditions. About the defence of liberty and the question of mala in se and the creation of the doctrine of "there is no wrong without a remedy", the reputation of the judges is high. In a calculated indiscretion recently, Lord Denning said that he thought that the judges were a dashed sight more competent to legislate than Parliament was. On issues like that, I am completely in his favour and agree with him. Seated beside me—my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot)—is a former client of mine. Jack Cade is running through his belly. It is nice to know that some people, even my hon. Friend, call on us in time of difficulty. I know, when I look at my hon. Friend, that he is absolutely reliable—it is a sort of reflex condition—when it comes to matters of liberty.
It is suggested that this matter should be dealt with by the Privy Council. We know what that means. Let us be pragmatic for a moment. I descend from the lofty heights to which I have with difficulty risen and consider what this means. It means that on 1st August of some year two more or less anonymous gentlemen trot up—or down, according to where they are—to Balmoral, pop into a private room, have a sherry and, a little piece of paper having been prepared, while spending five minutes in that inner sanctum they pass an order. Incidentally, I have described this process in one of my more unrecognised writings.
What happens then? Everyone says, "Jolly good. The House of Commons will not be sitting until 15th October. The M.P.s will have forgotten all about it


by then. It is most unlikely that any of them will remember to put down a Prayer." The order having been passed, and that having been said, they discuss the grouse moors, the conversation perhaps resulting in them doing a bit of shooting—and then they go off to yield to the night life of Drumnadrochit.
We have the highest authority for saying that the judges will not submit to having their salaries varied by order of the Privy Council. This is precisely the method adopted in 1931 when, single ham-handedly, an order was passed saying that there would be a 20 per cent. reduction in the salaries of certain highly paid Crown servants. The Ministers of the day—not the most capable—declared that, in their view, the judges were Crown servants. I am bound to say that at that point the judges were undoubtedly on admirable legal and constitutional ground, for not only were they not Crown servants but there were a lot of articles by Professor Holdsworth and others, a lot of wonderful discussion and academic propositions—The Times pointed out what Henry IV had said about it—on whether the Crown was supreme or not.
What did it all prove? Certainly that judges are not in the position of postmen. I am not being derogatory about postmen. They are Crown servants, and that is a very good thing, too. They get pensions and so on. I do not think that anyone has ever disputed the fact that the judges were on good ground. But, having got themselves on good ground, they then behaved shockingly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) quoted from Mr. Hewson's book, to which Lord Sankey wrote a memorandum. Lord Sankey it was who said that they were frothing at the mouth. We must be clear about this. I wonder whether the judges ever said, "They cannot reduce our salaries, but if they want to increase them we would not feel that that was an infringement of our prerogative"? The memorandum of the judges is inscribed in the OFFICIAL REPORT of another place. I will not be unfair to the Committee. It was a long memorandum so I will quote only some of it. I will be happy to quote it all if I am asked to do so. It stated:
'If the salaries of the Judges can be reduced almost sub silentio'"—

and at least we can say that nobody can complain that it is being done sub silentio at the moment.
'by the methods recently employed, the independence of the Judicature is seriously impaired. It cannot be wise to expose judges of the High Court to the suggestion, however malevolent and ill-founded, that if their decisions are favourable to the Crown in revenue and other cases, their salaries may be raised and if unfavourable may be diminished.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 27th July, 1933; Vol. 88, c. 1210.]
1.30 a.m.
It is, of course, quite easy to be facetious about all this, but it is a very important point. It is a point of serious import for liberty. Over the Channel, they say that the juge d'instruction is a law to himself. One juge d'instruction said that he could summon Napoleon III and cross-examine him without interference by anyone, but no one tried it. This is, in theory, correct. In practice, the Minister cannot sack him, but he can pack him of to some lousy place in the Pyrenees where conditions are bad and he is never heard of again, which is the object of the exercise. One recalls the famous Bishop of Frejus, who used to say "By the wrath of God, Bishop of Frejus." Geographically, one can discipline them, if one cannot do so by more normal means.
What we are here doing is precisely what the judges protested about. They did not say, "You can't reduce our salaries." What they said was, "You can only reduce them by Act of Parliament." It was pointed out that if any judge cared to issue a petition of right, the matter would have to be decided by the judges, and they would have to decide whether the Act of Parliament really did reduce their salaries, or whether it was invalid.
This was something of a dilemma, and I hope that it will not occur again, because Lord Sankey recorded that Mr. Justice Macnaughton said that he would present a petition of right, and would not be treated as an office boy by the Home Office. He thought that the Government were kicking the bottom of the judges, which was undignified. Lord Sankey recorded that Mr. Justice Macnaughton seemed to be in such a condition of indignation some months afterwards that he was a little distressed.
I do not raise this matter in order to prolong the discussion. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham that I am just as anxious to get home to my wife as he is—I hope that he is happily married—but that I took the precaution of inviting my wife out to breakfast with me in case I was delayed.
I raise this as a matter of constitutional principle, and I say quite seriously to my hon. Friend that I would much prefer to be talking about byssinosis. If I could pick my subject I would rather give myself a few minutes on byssinosis than deal with these high constitutional issues on which, I humbly admit, I am incompetent to speak with authority. But I feel that I must speak, and I hope that I have not wearied the Committee unduly by these brief observations.

The Attorney-General: It would be a fascinating exercise to join with my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) in his resurrection of the interesting events of 1931. I admire, as the whole Committee does, his formidable memory of what occurred. The issue as it was seen by the judges—if I may say a few words about that—was that they deemed that the status and independence of the judicature was involved, because an Order in Council directed to be made in respect of "persons in His Majesty's service" was deemed by the Government of the day to cover them, and they took the view that the words "persons in His Majesty's service" was not a correct description of their position and that the Order in Council was a nullity in their case.
But, at the end of the day, the judges' salaries were cut by 20 per cent. Perhaps it is right to put the record straight to this extent, at any rate, that the judges concerned volunteered to withhold that percentage from their salaries, and that was done. I am sure that my hon. Friend, with his customary generosity, would want that part of the record to be made straight.
This Amendment arises from Clause 1(2) whereby
Her Majesty may at any time by Order in Council direct that any of the salaries to which the foregoing subsection applies shall be increased to such amount as may be specified in the Order.

Of course, that will involve the machinery of having a draft of the order previously approved by the affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament, and it will be a Resolution for increases of salary only. The suggestion that it should be possible, also, for the Executive by Order in Council to reduce the judges' salaries would raise a most serious constitutional principle, because it would place at the disposal of the Executive a power which it has not exercised and, in fact, has not had for about two and a half centuries; namely, by some quick measure to penalise judges who may have acted distastefully to the Executive by reducing their salaries.
This would introduce a most dangerous principle when Parliament itself has taken the most elaborate steps for the protection of the independence of the judiciary. It has taken those steps in various ways. For instance, judges' salaries are charged on the Consolidated Fund so that they do not fall within the scrutiny of this House, and criticism of a judge can only be confirmed by way of expression through a substantive Motion of the House. If this power was given to the Executive by means of some quick instruction through an Order in Council for the reduction of salaries, we should be granting a power of a most dangerous kind, and I accordingly advise the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Temporary Chairman: The rest of the Amendments to Clause 1 are not selected. In my opinion the principles of Clause 1 have been adequately debated and, under the powers given me by Standing Order 47, I shall put the Question, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill" without further debate.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(LORD CHANCELLOR'S SALARY AND PENSION.)

The Temporary Chairman: The next Amendment selected is Amendment No. 14. That is the first Amendment selected in Clause 2.—(Lord Chancellor's salary and pension)—in page 2, line 3, to leave out "£14,500" and insert "£12,050".
It will be for the convenience of the Committee if, with that Amendment, we


also discuss Amendments No. 31, in Schedule 1, page 4, line 5, to leave out "£11,250" and insert "£9,050".

Amendment No. 34, in Schedule 1, page 4, line 6, to leave out "£12,500" and insert "£10,050".

Amendment No. 37, in Schedule 1, page 4, line 7, to leave out "£11,250" and insert "£9,050".

Amendment No. 40, in Schedule 1, page 4, line 8, to leave out "£11,250" and insert "£8,050".

Amendment No. 43, in Schedule 1, page 4, line 9, to leave out "£10,000" and insert "£8,050".

Amendment No. 46, in Schedule 1, page 4, line 10, to leave out "£10,000" and insert "£8,050".

Amendment No. 49, in Schedule 1, page 4, line 11, to leave out "£10,000" and insert "£8,050".

Amendment No. 52, in Schedule 1, page 4, line 12, to leave out "£9,750" and insert "£7,850".

Amendment No. 54, in Schedule 1, page 4, line 13, to leave out "£8,250" and insert "£6,650".

Amendment No. 58, in Schedule 1, page 4, line 14, to leave out "£9,375" and insert "£7,550".

Amendment No. 61, in Schedule 1, page 4, line 15, to leave out "£8,125" and insert "£6,550".

Amendment No. 65, in Schedule 1, page 4, line 17, to leave out "£8,125" and insert "£6,550".

Mr. Paget: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, Clause 2, in page 2, line 3, to leave out "£14,500" and to insert "£12,050".
This is the group of Amendments dealing with particular increases for the various classes of judges. Speaking generally about the increases as a group, I submit to the Committee that at the present moment it will be agreed that we are in circumstances of great economic difficulty. We are experiencing what seems to be the sharpest deflation which the country has seen, and that deflation is being imposed by means of an increase in the cost of living. It therefore seems that a case to increase purchasing power for any particular group has to be made very clearly and strongly indeed when the whole policy of the country at this stage is to reduce that purchasing power all

round. It is in this light that we should look at the particular increases as they occur.
If one looks at the Schedule one finds that the first are the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. They are nine in number and they are members of the House of Lords. Since we are being asked to increase their salaries by something like £3,000 a year, I thought we should know what services we receive for that increase. I therefore inquired of the research department what the judicial committees in another place were and how often they sat.
I got this answer:
There are nine Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. I regret that the information you request concerning the number of hours of sitting over a period is not available.
That seemed very odd indeed. I should have thought that surely someone knows when the judicial committees in another place sit for the hearing of appeals. So I put forward a further request for this information. I was told flat that instructions were given that I was to be given no information. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] I am a little surprised to hear that cheer. We are being asked to make a large increase in the salaries of judges and we are deliberately denied information as to what we are being asked to pay them for.
The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) considers that funny. Does he consider it proper behaviour and the manner in which hon. Members of the Committee should be treated? I hope that we shall receive this information from the Attorney-General. This attempt to prevent us knowing what these gentlemen do for the money we are being asked to vote them is quite scandalous. We ought not to leave this Amendment until this information has been given to us. Do these Lords of Appeal in Ordinary work a 250-day year, which is the average for the community in general? Do they work even half that, do they work a 125-day year? Do they work even half that, a 75-day year? I very much doubt it. Before we vote this money we are entitled at least to that information.
1.45 a.m.
We are entitled to other information. Is this everything? Do the Law Lords as members of the House of Lords


receive the allowances and expenses which we voted for other peers, many of whom do this work for no other reward? Is what the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary receive and what we are being asked to vote them the whole of their remuneration, or do they get extra remuneration and expenses as members of another place?
Is it a reasonable priority to pick out men who work very short hours only periodically in London in circumstances of a good deal of comfort for this very large rise? I do not think that it will be suggested that Lords of Appeal in Ordinary are difficult to find. I cannot help feeling that there is no shortage of honourable and very learned gentlemen who would be delighted with a job of that sort. After all, if this is a matter of prestige, another place still carries great prestige. It is no secret that there are a whole queue of gentlemen most anxious for peerages and what might be called working peerages upon the basis of promises to give full-time attendance, probably a good deal more attendance than is required of these gentlemen who are at present being paid £9,000 a year which it is proposed to increase to £11,250. Surely in the circumstances of today at least this one must be a wrong priority.
I come to the Lord Chief Justice. At present he receives £10,000 a year. I do not suppose anybody will suggest that this is a desperately difficult job to do. Does his work greatly exceed that of his colleagues in the division? Why at this stage is it necessary to pick out this particular and very highly paid functionary for a rise of this description?
Another one which strikes me as a very surprising one is the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, who is not only being given a rise of 25 per cent. but is being given a special rise of about 40 per cent. I do not want to be critical of this particular appointment, but I am forced to do so by the extent to which facts were misrepresented at an earlier stage in this debate.
This judge is there on what is a straight political appointment. He came here as a relatively young man—something under 40—and a junior, and certainly not a junior with a very large practice. He got silk here and I do not know whether

he would have got silk if he had not been a Member of Parliament. He became P.P.S. to the then Attorney-General which, after all, is not a job for which any busy barrister would have had time. He then got junior office in the Home Office and from there became Solicitor-General and was appointed President of the division over the heads of a number of experienced judges in that division and of a number of vastly more experienced silks in that division.
Nobody can say that that was other than a political appointment. It is probably the last political appointment which we will have. In the old days there were political judicial appointments. The Attorney-General was considered to have a right to the office of Lord Chief Justice if that became vacant and the Solicitor-General was considered to have a right to the office of President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division if that became vacant. I am glad to think that this practice has come to an end and that this appointment was perhaps the last. When one appoints a man who as a barrister was probably in the £3,000 a year class to an office of this sort, to say that this—

Mr. Quintin Hogg: On a point of order. I have been listening very patiently to the hon. and learned Gentleman, if that is the way to describe him. I always understood that a direct attack on the judiciary was in order only if a substantive Motion was moved. I regard this as an offensive and improper attack and I ask you, Mr. Jennings, for your ruling on the subject.

The Temporary Chairman: I was listening in some pertubation at the end to the trend of the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). He got far too near the wind in what I consider to be a personal attack. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) is quite right in saying that an attack such as this can be made only on a substantive Motion, and I would be grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton if he would get down to the narrow Amendments on salary which we are discussing.

Mr. Hale: Further to that point of order. We have been placed in the position that a very special increase under


the Bill is being awarded to one occupant of high judicial office. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) has not been in the Committee. I referred to this matter earlier and I referred to the occupant of that office in terms which were a tribute to the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division as to his character, learning and so on, but it was a political appointment.
Surely it cannot be ruled out of order to say that if the Committee is now called upon to consider whether the occupant of a single office shall have a rise in salary much greater than the Bill gives to the occupant of any other office we are entitled to consider in our knowledge of him that he was a Member for an industrial constituency which he left at a time of high unemployment and distress to his constituents for the security, financial rewards and dignity of the office which he attained. It is surely relevant to the Committee's discussions to consider in regard to the presidency of the division the occupant's duties and qualifications and the amount which should be awarded.

Sir D. Glover: Further to that point of order. This is a most despicable attack by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) on a former Member of the House, who was here for many years. The hon. and learned Gentleman's case is completely destroyed by the fact that if this is a political appointment—and I do not accept that that is true—then it was made by a Government now in Opposition, and the present Government, who presumably opposed that appointment if it were political, are proposing the increased salary.

The Temporary Chairman: It is quite relevant to argue about the merits of the office without mentioning a particular person in that appointment. That is the Ruling which I gave in the first place. That is why I was concerned by the trend of the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks. I should be grateful if he would come to the principles of the Amendment.

Mr. Paget: I am astonished to hear the statement which I made described as an attack upon this learned judge. I had not the slightest intention of

attacking him. He was on my circuit. He came as a young Member here. I always liked him and I think we all liked him. But I do not think that it is an attack upon a man to say that within a system—

Mr. Hogg: On a point of order. I understand, Mr. Jennings, that you have ruled that this personal comment dealing with the occupant of the office is irrelevant to the Amendment and that what is relevant to it is the nature of the office which is to attract the salary. If I am right in understanding that, I ask you to rule the hon. and learned Gentleman—if that is the correct way to describe him—out of order.

The Temporary Chairman: I have already done so and I have asked the hon. and learned Member to stick to the Amendment. I allowed him to go on because I thought that he was explaining his previous attitude, and I thought that in the next sentence he was about to put his foot in it again.

Mr. Paget: I assure you, Mr. Jennings, that that is exactly what I was doing. I have been personally attacked by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone who first suggests that the Committee is not entitled to know what the gentlemen we are being asked to pay in fact do and then accuses me of having made a personal attack on a man whom I have always liked and respected. I must have the opportunity to repudiate that and to say that I did nothing of the sort. I am talking of the office. I was saying that this was a political office. It is a political office if it goes by convention to the holder of a political office because he holds that office. That has happened in this case. It went over the heads of senior judges in the division and vastly senior silks. When we have a political office of that sort it ought not to be selected for a special advantage. That is all that I am saying, and I think that it is in order.

The Temporary Chairman: That is in order.

Mr. Paget: I am grateful to you, Mr. Jennings. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone—if that is the right description—should listen to more of the debate before he intervenes in a somewhat offensive manner.
We come to the Scottish appointments, about which a considerable protest was made by hon. Members opposite whom I do not see present. I do not see them here now, but perhaps they will put in an appearance.
There is no case made, in our present economic circumstances, for granting these outstanding rises to functionaries who are already highly rewarded when we are unable to fulfil promises which, as a party, we entered into to other people who certainly need the money a great deal more.

2.0 a.m.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: With these Amendments, we reach what many hon. Members regard as the kernel of the matter. Although we have listened to many important arguments put forward by hon. Members who are in the legal profession, and we shall have some more strictly relevant to this debate, no doubt, the opposition to the Government's policy in this connection and their introduction of these proposals at this time is much more widespread than is indicated by the particular points made by members of the legal profession.
The argument is two-fold. If the Government had said that there were more cases coming before the courts and there was, therefore, a greater burden of work, this could have been met in various ways. One way would have been to increase the number of judges, if necessary. There are many other matters which arise in the day-to-day work of the courts which are of interest to my hon. Friends who are lawyers, but, as many hon. Members will know from discussions with their constituents, with their local Labour Parties and with representatives of the organised trade union movement during the last weekend, what is particularly criticised by a great many people who are not themselves connected with the legal profession is the general policy behind the Bill.
This criticism of the Government's attitude was echoed in published opinion last Sunday. I quote from a short leading article in the Observer which put the case very well:
By any of the usual criteria applied to wage claims, the case for an increase in judges' pay seems to be an exceptionally thin one. Whether or not the Government was com-

mitted to increasing their salaries by its predecessor, Labour M.P.s are right to speak out against a rise in High Court judges' pay from £8,000 to £10,000 a year. Judges have traditionally held a higher position in the scale of rewards than other public servants, but increasingly the public has been aware that there is little reason, tradition apart, why judges should receive pay far in excess of that received by most Ministers and senior civil servants. Much lower salaries for the judiciary in almost every other country have not led to"—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. It is perfectly in order to read quotations for various sources, but I would be grateful if they were not too lengthy.

Mr. Mendelson: I am coming to the final sentence of this quotation:
The successful barristers who are appointed to the bench accept appointment because of the enormous prestige and dignity which we accord judges, rather than for the pay. £8,000 in 1965 is quite enough to pay even the guardians of our liberty.
I submit that this represents a very wide range of public opinion in the country at present.
I am deliberately moving away from some of the more specialist arguments in which we have so far been involved on these Amendments to indicate that my case, and the case of many other hon. Members on this side, is not limited to some of the criticisms which might be made of the way in which some of the courts may be overloaded. It is not linked in the first place with proposals for reform of the working of the courts. It is the much more general case that the basis on which the Attorney-General has started several speeches which he has made, both on Second Reading and now in Committee, is misguided.
I take particular exception, I would like to tell my right hon. and learned Friend at the earliest opportunity, to his implied appeal to his colleagues on these benches when, in a speech this evening, he accepted that other people, people in the low income groups, had need of an increase, and pensioners had need of an increase, and then said that no doubt we in discussions of these matters with our constituents, would put these points to them. I will not link the increases proposed in this Bill with the claims of people who, over many years, have been living on the poverty line. That was a suggestion he should never have made to us.
I was amazed that the Attorney-General started his argument with the seriously


meant proposition that there has been such a serious deterioration in the standard of living of the judges involved in the Bill. There has to be some equity in the treatment of members of all sorts of professions and working people, and judges. There is involved here an important principle, of how we assess at any given point what is right in equity and what is acceptable. That my right hon. and learned Friend should start his argument with the seriously meant proposition that there has been a serious deterioration in the standard of living of Her Majesty's judges but without saying anything at all about people involved in this Bill earning £8,000 a year is the strangest way either to introduce the Bill or to answer Amendments proposed to it in Committee.
There is disturbance in the minds of many hon. Members, because the proposals in this Bill come when we are living in a period when the Government are going all out, every weekend, and from every possible platform, to tell millions of people, "If you are contemplating seeking increases, you must bear in mind the general conditions of this country". The argument which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor consistently puts to people in the country is, "If you decide to pay yourselves higher wages, you will endanger the general fiscal position of the country".

Sir D. Glover: Can the hon. Gentleman point to one wage agreement which has taken place on the 3½ per cent. basis which the First Secretary has asked the nation to accept?

Mr. Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman will recall that I have not said anything about the 3½ per cent. argument. I would have been out of order had I done so, and I did not take part in the debate on that topic.
I am dealing with what the Chancellor says on every possible occasion. When trade unions or professional organisations apply for an increase in wages or salaries, he tells them that one of the decisive factors to which they must have due regard is that if they succeed, as he puts it, in paying themselves higher wages and salaries, they might, if the increases are too great, endanger the whole monetary position of the country.
In fact, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor goes further. In recent

speeches to the trade union movement in particular, but to all income groups, he has said "If you persist in this policy, if you refuse to have due regard to the monetary position of this country, there will be only two choices: either there will be inflation, and as a result the value of the monetary increase which you have received will go down, or there will have to be an element of Government control which scoops up once again, in unidentifiable ways, the money that you have received". Everyone knows that these unidentifiable ways might one day become specifically identifiable and involve policies which are very difficult to put across to the country, and the Attorney-General ought to remember that he, as a Member of the Government, will have to put those policies across to the people.
What are we doing in this Bill which has been brought in at the tail end of this Session? We are destroying the appeal that is being made every week by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are making those who are in a much humbler position than the Chancellor—the shop steward, the trade union district secretary, and so on—and who are loyally co-operating with the Government in propagating this policy look ridiculous.
I was amazed that the Attorney-General pleaded the case for what he called an urgently needed increase for the judges without making any reference to the country's general economic and financial position. Instead of starting with the entirely misleading statement that there had been a serious worsening in the standard of living of judges, my right hon. and learned Friend ought to have started by saying what the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Secretary of State say at the beginning of their speeches, nakedly, "Let us have due regard to the general monetary and economic position of the country". This is the basis of the debate, and I hope that the Attorney-General will give us a serious reply to this point, because he has not as yet dealt with it although he has intervened on a number of occasions.
I turn now to deal with an item of great importance, and one to which there has been no answer. There have been conflicting reports on this matter, and it is one to which many of my hon. Friends attach the greatest importance. Many of


them have told me that they regard the point I have just made as the crux of the matter.
There have been many conflicting statements about the alleged agreement that has been concluded—

The Chairman: Order. We cannot pursue the question of the alleged agreement on every Amendment. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would address himself to the Amendments.

2.15 a.m.

Mr. Mendelson: With great respect, the point about the alleged agreement is far more relevant to this set of Amendments than to any other set. It must be possible, I submit, to press the Attorney-General, on the Amendments that deal directly with the monetary increase and not with some artificial and theoretical percentages, to give a clear reply on whether this Administration is committed to the proposed figures by an agreement with the other side. That is all I intend to do.

The Chairman: Order. All that I am suggesting to the hon. Gentleman is that we cannot take the point of the alleged agreement on every Amendment that we discuss. It has been discussed adequately in previous Amendments.

Mr. Mendelson: All I am asking the Attorney-General to do is tell the Committee whether at any time either the Shadow Cabinet of the Parliamentary Labour Party or any other group of people speaking authoritatively for the Labour Party or, as it was then, Her Majesty's Opposition—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is taking no notice at all of what the Chair has said. I am asking him to address himself to the Amendments that we have before us. The Amendments are suggesting that we reduce the sums in the Bill by certain specific amounts.

Mr. Mendelson: Yes, but, with great respect, the proposal to reduce them is linked in the minds of those who are sponsoring this set of Amendments—and I am one of them—to the twin arguments which I regard as being of great importance and as the crux of the matter: the general economic and monetary

position in which the country finds itself, and whether there is some bond which is forcing the Government, which I support, to bring in the proposals.

The Chairman: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to show to the Chair the respect that he professes in the words "with great respect". We cannot discuss, on each of the groups of Amendments that we are discussing, the issue of whether there was a bond or agreement. I have ruled that that has been adequately discussed. The hon. Gentleman must show his respect for the Chair by accepting what I say.

Mr. Mendelson: Then, in order to obey the instructions of the Chair, may I express the hope to my hon. Friend that he will take note of what I say and accommodate the Committee by introducing in his general reply some account that will shed light on the position which he regards as so binding?
I move on from there to the third important argument that is involved. If it was considered necessary to review the salaries of judges, how has the amount been assessed and how has the decision come about to put forward these particular increases? Has it been done by saying that 25 per cent. is a round figure, but 50 per cent. would be a better figure and it would be best to have a figure that is at least 25 per cent.? What has been the method by which the Government have arrived at the proposed figures? We all known that when a group of salary earners or workmen makes an application for an increase, due regard is taken of a certain set of circumstances. There is at the moment a very serious conflict going on between some public servants employed in the railway services and their employers—a conflict which we all very much regret.
I represent the railway town of Penistone, and it is one of my duties as a Member of the House to discuss these matters with my constituents every Friday and Saturday. Quite naturally, they ask me, "Are these criteria which are being applied to our railway wage negotiations applied all round? Can you, as our Parliamentary representative, assure us that the kind of conditions which are being proposed for a successful outcome of our claim are being applied in other


spheres?" What am I to say? I put that question to my right hon. and learned Friend who was so free earlier with his advice about what we ought to say to our constituents. Are the Government applying to this very large percentage increase the argument used by the Railways Board—that certain conditions must be attached, not only a percentage review, but conditions concerned with productivity and the provision or non-provision of extra drivers and so on? We have been told nothing about the genesis of these proposals. All the Attorney-General has said at various stages so far is that the Government regard the increase as adequate.
He advanced another argument with great force. He said that it was absolutely essential that somehow or other the standards of the judges involved should be kept up. What is meant by that? Is it suggested that every time we consider a wage or salary application by any group of people, we have to consider the standard of their social rating in 1830? Are we to say that because a certain rating was given to a certain profession 100 years ago, it must continue itself and that there can be no reconsideration of the comparative standings of different groups?
My right hon. and learned Friend knows very well that there have been considerable changes in that respect and that quite a number of my constituents and his have had to accept the consequences of those changes. Is it a sufficient argument for the increase that in 1830 some people were assessed at £5,000 in order to keep up their standards in a kind of society which, happily, we do not know any more and who, it was thought, had to be elevated so much above their fellow citizens so that the majesty of the law should be shown, so that those appearing before them should be overawed by their position, not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) so brilliantly argued, by the dignity of their office and the excellence of the way in which they adminstered it, but in monetary terms? Have we always to take our terms of refernce from that datum line? If my right hon. and learned Friend is advancing that sort of policy, he is seriously out of line with most of his supporters.
Having spoken for as long as any hon. Member can expect at this hour to be tolerated by the Chair or his colleagues in the Committee, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will now seriously address himself to these issues which are seriously troubling many people. Those are the reasons why many of us have determined not to let the Bill pass without serious and detailed examination. There is no nonsense about their being a large number of grievances and fastening on this, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) suggested there was.
He demeaned his position as a colleague of hon. Members who are advancing these arguments in serious debate. He should know that when many hon. Members get together in a detailed debate of this kind, when they sometimes have differences in many other respects, that has nothing to do with the sort of considerations which he was suggesting. The views which I have expressed are representative of those of many hon. Members on this side of the Committee and of trade unionists and many workers, teachers and others in all sorts of professions, and I hope that the Attorney-General will now give a serious and detailed reply.

The Attorney-General: I cannot understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), who has spoken with such eloquence and sincerity, should have been able to take some kind of offence at my expression of sympathy for the condition of ald-age pensioners and people earning very little moneys. I hope that my hon. Friend does not think that he has the monopoly of sympathy and concern for such folk, because he would be misleading himself if he thought so. These problems that our community has to face with this eternal rise in the cost of living are extremely difficult.
What we are faced with in this case is a group of salary earners in the community—it is true that they are getting a lot of money already—who are the only group of earners of income who have had no rise for 11 years, and under the Bill they will have to wait another year. We have discussed the general issues arising on this matter, but perhaps I can pinpoint some of the issues that the Committee should face when I remind hon.


Members that the first of the batch of Amendments that we are considering relates to the salary of the Lord Chancellor.
Earlier in the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) made, with great vigour, the point that in this matter of judicial salaries there had been no reference to any kind of independent commission. When we consider the Lord Chancellor's salary, this is what we find. The proposal in the Bill is to increase the salary, not to £17,000; I agree with my hon. Friend, who seems to think that the Lord Chancellor should get £17,000. He is a little out of line with my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone on this, but he is being consistent. The Committee should bear in mind that the Lawrence Committee, two of whose members, incidentally, were members of the National Incomes Commission, recommended for the Lord Chancellor a salary of £17,000 to take effect forthwith or as soon as the legislation was introduced.
Recognising the very points that my hon. Friend has made of the economic difficulties of the country, the Government took the view that such an increase as that would not be justified in the circumstances, and so a perhaps arbitrary figure was decided upon of 50 per cent. of it. This was an adjudication of what the job should carry by way of salary by a wholly independent body whose views on Parliamentary salaries the House of Commons rightly accepted. I entirely agree with what was said earlier in the debate that that is not an argument which should be used on one side or the other in relation to judicial salaries. That, however, is the position. Taking into account all the economic factors, the professional standing and the position of this high office in the order of government and of our community, that was what that independent body awarded. We have given half of it.
When my hon. Friend asks with such critical vehemence what standard the Government apply, I assure him that the Government have considered these matters with agonising care and that the conclusion that was arrived at was that, in all the circumstances, 25 per cent. was a fair increase to provide, broadly speaking, all round taking into account the 1954

assessment that Parliament made of what the salaries ought to be, changes in the cost of living since then, comparable earnings of other judges and the problem of inducements to man the High Court bench. Whether I carry my hon. Friend with me I do not know, but I assure him that all these factors were considered with the greatest care by the Government. I come belatedly to the subject of pensions. I apologise to my hon. Friend for not dealing with it before, but I am now better armed to deal with it than I was earlier. Taking that also into consideration, the view which the Government formed was that, in the circumstances, this was a fair appraisal and what should fairly be done. It is true that there was an increase in pensions. In 1925, the Judicature Act put the pension at £3,500. Then, in 1950 the Administration of Justice (Pensions) Act reduced the pensions by one quarter in return for a lump sum and a widows' pension arrangement. That brought the pension down to £2,625—

2.30 a.m.

Mr. Hale: The pension for widows?

The Attorney-General: Yes.
Then, in 1954, as my hon. Friend pointed out, there was a salary increase to £8,000. There was no alteration to the pension at that stage, but, in 1959, the Judicial Pensions Act put the pensions up to a half of the final salary, so that there is now a pension of £4,000. That improvement in 1959 was part of a new scheme of pensions, to enable the High Court judge to retire on something less than a full pension if he fell ill or for some other reason had to retire before he had served 15 years.

Mr. Hale: He gets £2,000 a year pension when he has served five years, he gets £4,000 a year pension when he has served 15 years and his widow gets a pension if he dies in office?

The Attorney-General: That is so, but the effect of these arrangements is that, whereas in some ways they were undoubtedly beneficial to the judge, there were variations which did not bring an increase in his pension position.
However, that is the position, and I am frank with the Committee about it. But we come to this point which I have made. Repetition is always intolerable,


but it is particularly so at 2.30 a.m. If one is looking at the fairness and equities of this matter, one must recognise that this vitally important group of salary earners in our community have not had a penny increase for 11 years, the cost of living has gone up, in the meantime, 42 per cent., and, in the circumstances, the Committee may feel that the adjustments now proposed are reasonable.
I would say a final word on what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) about the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. They get no attendance money—4½ guineas a day—and it surprised me that he thinks that any kind of guide to the quality of a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary is represented by the number of hours he sits listening to these highly complex and difficult final appeals in our country. They are lawyers of great distinction who have the critical task to perform of being the final court of appeal in our country and, in the Judicial Committee, of many parts of the Commonwealth. I venture to think that no one will doubt that they are worthy of the comparable increase which is contemplated in the Bill.

Mr. Paget: Before my right hon. and learned Friend sits down, would he say whether there is any reason why we should not know what hours they sit and on how many days a year?

The Attorney-General: If any conceivable assistance and relevance could be found in such statistics as that, I have no doubt that, in due course, the experiment may be possible.

Mr. Hogg: I shall not detain the Committee for long, and I hope not to cause undue offence because what I have to say will be relatively provocative. However, I assure the Committee that what I say will be entirely sincere. This Amendment is disgraceful. It has been fatuously argued by a set of meretricious arguments which deserve far greater contempt than has been heaped upon them by the Attorney-General with such urbanity.
The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) drew a number of comparisons and general arguments which were sought to relate to our general

economic position. That was one set of arguments. He referred to what he described as the "ordinary shop steward", and I am glad that he was not referring to his right hon. Friend the Minister for Technology, who I am glad to see sitting on the Treasury Bench. The Government can for once rely on him in this matter.
Having referred to the ordinary shop steward, the hon. Member for Penistone referred to his constituents, the railwaymen, and to an argument of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about what he described as "paying ourselves more money". I must tell the Committee that I supported, and I still loyally support, the increases in our own salaries. I have always done so over a period of time. It comes singularly ill from an hon. Member of Parliament who had voted himself more money, in the most literal sense of the word, to complain about the relatively small increases of salary we are considering. I say "relatively small"—that is, compared with the increases of salary which the hon. Gentleman has himself voted himself. This is sheer political hypocrisy—an attempt simply to scrounge favour with the more gullible of his constituents; an argument which should be rejected with contempt by the Committee, an argument wholly unworthy of Parliament.
I come to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), which I regarded as, if anything, more contemptible. I say nothing whatever about his disgraceful attack on the President of the Probate Divorce and Admiralty Division since that was ruled out of order. I simply say that I see nothing unreasonable in equating his office with that of the Master of the Rolls, which is the proposition by the Government and what it attacked by the Amendment.
At the same time, since the hon. and learned Gentleman appeared in the courts, as it is in my case, if he seriously supposes that the work of a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary—as he gave the Committee to understand and, therefore, tried to make the public believe—is comprised solely of sitting and listening to the arguments of counsel, he is saying something which, at any rate when he was practising at the Bar, he would have


known to be complete nonsense. The work of a judge consists largely not only of being in possession of considerable learning and skill. Hearing a difficult case involves also a great deal of research which the judge cannot delegate to anybody else. There must also be considerable discussion before and after hours with his colleagues.
To have it put forward in the House of Commons, even in the middle of the night, that the work of a judge could be adequately assessed by judging the number of hours he puts in when sitting on the Bench listening to the arguments of counsel would not be so bad if the suggestion came from someone like the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). But coming from the hon. and learned Gentleman it is a disgrace to Parliament, and he should be thoroughly ashamed of himself.
All I would say to the hon. and learned Gentleman is this. He once referred to me, in complimentary terms, as "a lying hypocrite"—and that at a time when I was not in my place to defend myself. I will not call him that, but I will say that if he came across Westminster Bridge with Pecksniff in front of him and Uriah Heep behind him, pursued by a group of Pharisees, I should omit to warn him that he was keeping unsuitable company.

Mr. Eric Ogden: Quietly, very quietly, I have listened to the two debates on these Amendments for a total of nine hours, and I have come to the conclusion that Shakespeare was right. Unfortunately, thanks to the efforts of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman), we cannot apply Shakespeare's particular remedy.
I have no intention of referring to holders of judicial offices. Frankly, I dislike the Bill and this series of Amendments. The Committee has been given a bone to gnaw—a bone of £¼ million a year, which might be the maximum total—and we are gnawing it very vigorously indeed. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) came close to the core of the matter when he said that we were talking about egalitarianism, but that point could be equally well made in regard to other matters as well.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) argued for and against the Measure, and then decided to sit on the fence. He is entitled to his point of view, but I do not think that any of us were sent to this place to sit on the fence. Whether or not we vote, we should make up our minds whether to support a Measure or oppose it—

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I made it quite clear that I was not sitting on the fence but that I had taken a positive and carefully considered decision to abstain.

Mr. Ogden: The hon. Gentleman said that he would abstain, and that, to my mind, is just sitting on the fence.
The Attorney-General said that without a fearless, able and independent judiciary we should be in dire difficulties. I think that he is quite right, but do we have to pay £8,000 plus £2,000, or £10,000 plus £2,500, or £14,000 plus £2,500 in order to get these fearless, able and independent gentlemen? That is a vital part of his argument. He also said that unless we paid these sums we would be in danger of getting second-class judges. That argument is completely opposite to that used for nurses and teachers, where we are told that it is the vocation that matters rather than calling for a certain salary. Equally, if in 1954 the House decided that the salaries of judges should be £8,000, and if salaries have since increased by 65 per cent. and wages by 46 per cent., that is not reason why a 1·9 per cent. increase for 12 years should add up to 25 per cent. and be employed in this context.
In all fairness, I do not think that we can compare a 1·9 per cent. increase on a salary of £8,000 with a 1·9 per cent. increase on a salary of £8 a week. This is an honourable trade, but it is not basically any different from that of the railway man, the docker, the butcher or the miner. This 1·9 per cent. is not the real basis. The Attorney-General made a good case, but he has not yet made the case that would convince me that in these times it is necessary to provide salaries of £8,000, £10,000 and £14,500.
If these salaries are needed to provide gentlemen to do this job, to enable them to do it properly and to live in decency, honesty and respectability, I would, with respect, remind my right hon. and learned


Friend that a craftsman, first grade, in the British coal mining industry has just had a 1s. 4d. a day increase; that a 100 per cent. disabled person has to live on £6 15s. a week, that a widow for the first thirteen weeks has to live on a pension of £5 12s. 6d. a week. The average wage in industry is less than £20 a week, and useful people, usefully employed, are having to live on an income a sixth, an eighth, a twentieth of the salaries of which we are now talking. Perhaps I am talking in the way described last week by the "Eagle of the North," but perhaps the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) had a case when he said that it was a great constitutional issue—except that I think that he should just have called it a great issue. The issue is whether we are really going to make labour, and the dignity of labour, not just a pious hope but a reality. I am not ashamed or afraid of being called egalitarian, because if the approach is not made from these benches, then, from where will it be made?

2.45 a.m.

Mr. Edward Short: Mr. Edward Short rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Mr. Abse: On a point of order. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) has referred to my Amendments as being contemptuous. I hope I may have the protection of the Chair.

The Chairman: An Amendment has been moved and the Question now before the Committee is, "That the Question be now put."

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Mr. Abse: On a point of order. I have not had an opportunity of speaking at all on the merits of the Amendment.

The Chairman: Order.

Question, That "£14,500" stand part of the Clause, put accordingly and agreed to.

Mr. Paget: I beg to move Clause 2, in page 2, line 6, to leave out from "shall" to "be" in line 7.
This Amendment has the effect of bringing in the principle of parity. It seems to me to be greatly unjust that a

person's pension should depend on the date at which he retires and not on the work which he has done or the office which he has filled. I have come across this sort of thing in the Services where this level of injustice is very serious indeed. One can recall the case of men who have risen to the rank of regimental serjeant-major but who find themselves on retirement receiving less pension than a contemporary private simply because the latter happened to leave the Army on a different date.
Having run into the evil of the system in another context, and in view of the fact that the Labour Party has pledged itself to remedy the defect by introducing the principle of parity in relation to pensions where parity does not apply, it seems to me to be quite wrong to introduce a system of pensions here in which the Chancellor receives a pension of £5,000 a year if he resigns before 1st April next but £6,250 if he should resign after that date.
If it is right because of the change in the cost of living for these pensions to be put up, then all should have it. The people concerned are all getting a pension for the same work, for the same sacrifice, and for the same job. This may seem, perhaps, to be a small point, but I say that the same principle should apply everywhere. The right hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) was rumbustiously offensive at my expense. I feel that I owe him that because I was very rude to him once before. I bear no resentment and I think we can call it quits.

The Attorney-General: I naturally sympathise with the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) in this Amendment. The pension increases, as he said, apply to those who resign after 1st April next year and that does not affect ex-Lord Chancellors presently in receipt of pensions. As my hon. and learned Friend knows, the Government are reviewing public service pensions. It may well be that the point he has in mind may fall for consideration under that review.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Are we to take it from that reply that, whatever we are discussing here, there may be further pensions increases? If I understand that to be so, I am very much against this


Amendment. I think that £5,000 a year is an adequate pension for any man. I give the Government full credit for doing a wonderful job for old-age pensioners, very quickly and rightly. Even in the great economic difficulties confronting the country. They gave old-age pensioners a big increase—12s. 6d. a week. We think £32 10s. a year a big increase. It should be adequate for any Lord Chancellor.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member should come to the Amendment, which is to decide whether the increased pension now proposed should also apply to Lord Chancellors who retired before a certain date.

Mr. Lewis: The present £5,000 a year is quite adequate. My hon. and learned Friend suggested that the increase should in effect apply to existing pensioners, but that would be quite wrong when ordinary pensioners have had an increase of £32 10s. a year. Why should ex-Lord Chancellors have this additional pension? These hon. and learned gentlemen are the only section of the population who can retire and take their last year's earnings free of tax. My hon. and learned Friend corrected me on Second Reading by saying that they could accumulate it. If they are able to claim extra pension it will be on top of their tax-free earnings prior to receiving the pension. I cannot for the life of me see why these people, especially in view of the last remark of the Attorney-General, should be able to do that.
The Attorney-General quietly slipped in the remark that notwithstanding the pension already given, there will be the review of public service pensions and no doubt what my hon. and learned Friend has in mind would be considered in that review. I am glad that they are not to be given the increase under these proposals and have to manage on £5,000 a year, but this is a farce. It does not matter how we put our case, the Lord Chancellor has decided that he will not give us a quarter of an inch. Is this democracy? This is a farce, but nevertheless we have to argue and put forward the proposition so that the people of the country shall know of it.
I strongly disagree with the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend. He thinks

that on the merits ex-Lord Chancellors should have the increase which Lord Gardiner will get when he retires. I do not think that is right. Lord Kilmuir drew his pension for only a fortnight and then stopped drawing it. If the Amendment were carried, Lord Kilmuir, when he draws his pension from the Plessey firm and the other firms from which he is reputed to get £20,000 or £30,000 a year, would in addition to the £5,000 a year get the increased proposed by my hon. and learned Friend. Am I to take it that Lord Dilhorne, who is in another place allegedly doing legal work and already drawing the £5,000, would be entitled to this increase? Must I support my hon. and learned Friend's suggestion to give him extra on top of his £5,000 so that he can oppose the democratic will of the House of Commons on such things as the abolition of hanging and trade disputes?

The Chairman: Order. The question of the constitutional relations between another place and this House does not arise on the Amendment.

Mr. Lewis: I was saying that, if my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment were accepted—I support the Attorney-General in saying that it should not be accepted—one of the beneficial recipients would be the noble Lord, Lord Dilhorne, who is at this moment drawing the £5,000 a year.

The Chairman: Order. Whether a noble Lord in the other place is opposed to a Bill which is in the other place has nothing to do with the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman must take note when the Chair calls him to order.

Mr. Lewis: I was saying that the noble Lord, Lord Dilhorne is at present receiving the £5,000 a year. If the Amendment were accepted, his pension would rise. If the increased pension is to be given to existing pension recipients or to ex-Lord Chancellors who are now drawing the pension, he is one of those who would draw the extra money. I am advancing reasons why I think that this gentleman should not receive the extra which my hon. and learned Friend suggests. I have pointed out that for some years now prior to these gentlemen drawing their existing £5,000 a year they have received, according to the Press, £20,000 or £30,000—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not repeat arguments he has already advanced.

Mr. Lewis: I was going on to explain that in addition to this these gentlemen would, if my hon. Friend's proposal were accepted, be able, not once but twice and, indeed, three times to get their tax-free earnings when they retire, plus the £5,000, plus my hon. and learned Friend's proposal. I am very much against it.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Paget: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, Clause 2, in page 2, line 9, at the end to add:
(3) Payment of the Lord Chancellor's pension shall be conditional—

(a) upon the pensioner not receiving earned income from any other source; and
(b) upon the pensioner making himself available to participate in the legal work of the House of Lords to the extent that may be reasonable required of him having regard to his age and health.

The Chairman: With this Amendment I suggest that the Committee should discuss Amendment No. 89, in page 2, line 9, at end add:
(3) The pension payable to a retired Lord Chancellor shall for such time as he is doing the work of a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary be equal to the pay of a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary.
and new Clause 3.—(Other paid employment to be relinquished.)

3.0 a.m.

Mr. Paget: The pension of a Lord Chancellor is not only very large. It is payable without respect to the length of service. Thus, a Lord Chancellor is entitled to full pension even though he has held the seals of office for only one day. This is justified on two grounds. The first is that the head of the judiciary should not be in a position in which he has to ply for private hire. This is right. This has been broken on two occasions but the general principle is right that a man who has been head of the judiciary should not put himself in a position in which he becomes the employee of somebody else and in that capacity may have to appear before judges whom he himself has appointed. It is a justification for this exceptional pension.
The other justification for it is that the ex-Lord Chancellor is expected to take part in the legal business of the House of Lords. If we are to grant a pension

for these reasons—and I hope that the Government will be able to accept the Amendment—it seems right that we should put the provisions in the Bill. This is all that I am attempting to do.
As for the other Amendment—and this again will incur the wrath of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis)—if a former Chancellor is working as though he were a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary I fail to see why he should not have the rate for the job, if he is fully employed there, instead of simply drawing a pension. Before we part with the Clause I would add that I would hate it for anybody to think that the Amendment was in any way getting at the present Lord Chancellor, Lord Gardiner.
I know no man whom I admire or ever have admired more than I admire Lord Gardiner. Nor have I ever found in a man quite such a coincidence of virtue and ability. When I was at the Bar I sought—I know must unsuccessfully—to model myself on him, and in public service he has my utmost admiration. I want to make this particular point lest it should be thought that the Amendment is any kind of attack to get at the present occupant of the office. Of course it is not, but we are dealing here with public funds and the terms on which any public money is given should be explicit.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friends sit here muttering. They do not have to wait, as I have told them, but I shall exercise what I think is my right.

The Chairman: Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Member would come to the Amendment.

Mr. Lewis: I am coming to the Amendment, but my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) is muttering. If he wants to intervene, I will give way.
It is a terrible situation in which we have a proposal to a Lord Chancellor, who has what is regarded by all concerned as a reasonable salary—I will not say an excessive salary—goes on pension and is able to draw that pension and also to his other income. Under the National Insurance scheme we all pay contributions. When the ordinary person goes on to pension he has to relinquish any other form of income. He cannot draw


two pensions at the same time. My Amendment would put the Lord Chancellor in the same position; I am not asking that he should be treated any better or any worse than the ordinary person.
I may disagree with the proposal to increase the pension, for I think that £5,000 is adequate, but for the sake of the argument I will accept that the increase is necessary. My Amendment suggests that this should be the total amount that the Lord Chancellor draws and that he should not be able at the same time to draw other income. This rule applies to civil servants and local government officers, as well as to the ordinary pensioner, and I do not think that it is unreasonable. A pensioner is not entitled to draw two pensions from the State scheme. The Lord Chancellor has already drawn, certainly once and possibly twice, the last year's earnings tax free, in addition. This makes a mockery of our system of payment to people in this country. The Attorney-General may well argue that because of the rise in the cost of living the salary should be raised, but I do not see why this exhorbitant pension should be drawn in addition to other income. If the Lord Chancellor wants to draw his pension, let him do so, but let him be limited to the one pension.

The Attorney-General: I advise the Committee against accepting these Amendments. The basis of Amendment No. 20 is to make the payment of the Lord Chancellor's pension conditional upon his
not receiving earned income from any other source
and
upon the pensioner making himself available to participate in the legal work of the House of Lords to the extent that may be reasonably required of him having regard to his age and health.
The Amendment assumes that it is in the public interest for an ex-Lord Chancellor to be required by financial considerations to accept what is in practice a full-time judicial post. But the Committee should bear in mind that a Lord Chancellor, unlike any other judge, is free to and indeed is expected to take an active part in politics, and it is not unknown for an ex-Lord Chancellor to

return to the Woolsack for a second term of office, as has been done by some great Lord Chancellors—Lord Cairns, Lord Selborne, Lord Herschell and Lord Haldane, for example. This would be difficult if, on vacating office, the ex-Lord Chancellor had for financial reasons to undertake full-time judicial duties.

Sir John Hobson: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would care to be reminded that Lord Jowitt, in the first year after he retired from the Lord Chancellorship, spoke on 100 different topics in the other place on behalf of the then Opposition, and on 102 in the following year.

The Attorney-General: I was about to come to the notable contribution of Lord Jowitt, without being armed with that graphic detail. From 1952 to 1955, Lord Jowitt acted as Leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords, and, of course, Lord Dilhorne is now acting as deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords.
Another objection to his Amendment, which will, I think, appeal to my hon. and learned Friend's sense of equity, is that an ex-Lord Chancellor would be required to do a full-time Lord of Appeal's job but at about half the rate, which does not seem to be a very satisfactory arrangement. Moreover, the Amendment is somewhat vague, if I may say so—
to participate in the legal work of the House of Lords to the extent that may be reasonably required".
By whom, one knows not. Who can require him, one knows not. For all these reasons, I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will not press the Amendment.

Mr. Abse: I appreciate that there are defects in the Amendment as it stands, but there is need for clarification of this whole matter so that we may know what are the obligations of an ex-Lord Chancellor to participate in legal work. Having in mind the history in this connection, I suspect that what is concerning my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) is the attitude taken by former Lord Chancellors, Lord Birkenhead in particular. It will be recalled that Lord Birkenhead went to the City after he ceased to be Lord Chancellor, and the Press at that time commented


unfavourably on the fact that he still received the £5,000 a year to which an ex-Lord Chancellor not holding any other office of profit under the Crown was entitled and he was not giving any unpaid judicial service.
Lord Birkenhead wrote a letter to The Times, with all the authority of his own opinion behind it, making abundantly clear that, in his view, there was no legal or moral obligation to provide continuous or, indeed, any judicial service. For good measure, he proposed to assign the pension to some hospital. One cannot examine Lord Birkenhead's argument without coming to the conclusion that he considered that the payment was not a pension. Further, he said that, if judicial service was expected, it was absurd that an ex-Lord Chancellor should be paid less than a Law Lord. But that is another issue.
It is not good enough to rely on certain conventions when, in truth, Lord Birkenhead may well have been right. The Act of 1832 had as its object providing an annual payment of £5,000 on a Lord Chancellor's retirement from the Woolsack, and the object was certainly not to establish a pension contingent on certain conditions. It was nothing of the kind. The Long Title shows clearly that the object was to abolish certain sinecure offices which up to that time had been the perquisite of the Lord Chancellor. It stated so. It stated that it was intended to abolish sinecure offices in connection with the Court of Chancery and to make provision for the Lord High Chancellor on his retirement from office; and, as far as the Lord Chancellor's pension is concerned, which was subsequently put in, it was a name, which was only confirmed by the Short Titles Act, 1896, and in no other Act is the term "pension" used as a definition or description of the payment to be made under it. It is a retiring allowance, an annuity, call it what you will, and so there was great weight indeed in Lord Birkenhead's argument.
3.15 a.m.
But I am attracted by what my hon. and learned Friend is proposing, because at the least it is making explicit that there are certain conventions, and I believe that they are conventions which should be at this time embodied in legislation, in view of the fact that it appears they can change as Lord Birkenhead changed them. So

I hope that the Attorney-General, who has dismissed every plea which has been made from these benches, will not treat in any perfunctory manner, as he appears intent upon doing, Amendments which are matters of principle. For certainly I have not indulged, nor do I intend to indulge, in praising or detracting from individual holders of office. I am concerned about the principles, and I doubt, I must say, from the arguments we have received so far from the Attorney-General, whether he is giving to the arguments which have been presented which the attention some of us believe should be given.

The Attorney-General: I am sorry my hon. Friend has struck that rather sour note. Of course I have given attention to these arguments, and with very great care, but when practical experience has shown that certainly from the time of Lord Birkenhead ex-Lord Chancellors have performed judicial duties in the House of Lords, and, indeed, in the Judicial Committee, and when the one exception to the contrary, namely, Lord Kilmuir, has not drawn his pension, I should have thought, in the light of that experience, that there was good room for leaving this matter as it stands, to the judgment of the individual. When one recollects the record in this matter, and what Lord Haldane and Viscount Simon did after their retirement from the Woolsack, and what Lord Jowitt did, one feels it justifies the view I have commended to the Committee. I hope my hon. Friend will acquit me of indifference to these matters.

Mr. Paget: Of course, in the drafting I attempted no more than to convey an intention. Nobody without the assistance of the official draftsmen can draft well for the Statute Book something of this nature.
On the merits of the matter, however, I feel that the case of the Lord Chancellor who stays in political service is a very real one and one which should be dealt with. We pay his pension to the Lord Chancellor as a judge. We do not pay it to him for service as a politician. If he is going to continue as a politician I venture to say he should not draw the pension, any more than any other ex member of the Government draws a large pension while he continues to serve a position in politics. While


he is doing a political job, then I do not feel he should draw either the judicial salary or the judicial pension. The two do not mix, and ought not to mix. A man ought not to be part-judge and part-politician, save in that particular office, and that is the purpose of the Amendment. Nevertheless, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Samuel Storey): I am of opinion that the principle of the Clause and any matters arising therefrom have been adequately discussed in the debate on the Amendments, and therefore, under Standing Order No. 47, I shall put the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(ADDITIONAL JUDGES OF HIGH COURT IN ENGLAND.)

The Deputy-Chairman: The next Amendment selected is No. 22, Clause 3, in page 2, line 11, leave out "sixty-three" and add "fifty-seven", and with it we can discuss Amendment No. 21, Clause 3, in page 2, line 11, leave out "sixty-three" and add "sixty", and Amendment No. 67, Schedule 2, in page 4, line 32, leave out "sixty-three" and insert "sixty".

Mr. Arthur Lewis: This is the reduction in the number of judges. What I have in mind here is to ascertain from the Attorney-General on what basis he feels that this has been correctly assessed.

The Deputy-Chairman: I apologise to the Committee, I should have called Amendment No. 21, and with it we can discuss Amendments No. 22 and 67.

Mr. Abse: I beg to move, Amendment No. 21, Clause 3, in page 2, line 11, to leave out "sixty-three" and to add "sixty".
This Amendment and the two being discussed with it form the most important group of Amendments to the Bill, and I hope that by the time that I have concluded my plea to the Attorney-General I shall not have occasion to continue to

sound the sour note which he correctly said was creeping into my speeches.
I regard it as a sad feature of the Bill that this intended increase in the number of judges is merely an incitement to inefficiency and an encouragement to refrain from thinking out improvements in the administration of justice. It is clear that at this time we should be considering very seriously whether these extra judges are needed, whether certain changes can be made to rationalise the number of judges employed in the administration of justice, and also whether we are going to behave differently from businessmen and factory owners who, when there is a need for economy, do not think out ways of becoming more efficient.
The Amendment goes to the root of the matter. I regard it as a sad feature that we should be asked by a reforming Attorney-General, and by a reforming Lord Chancellor, to confirm the existing structure of the courts, with an increased number of judges. Perhaps I might illustrate my point by referring to a short essay which was published about two years ago. The point was pithily and succinctly made by an author of great renown. He put forward a suggestion for cutting down the number of judges. Dealing with the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords, he said that as, under the Judicature Act, 1873, the Court of Appeal was to be the final Court of Appeal, and as so few cases reached the House of Lords and it had always been important that the Court of Appeal should be strong, the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords, and the judges involved, should be abolished. I presume that the Attorney-General recognises his own words. They were brave words, and were the words not only of the Attorney-General but of the Lord Chancellor, though neither at that time held his present high office.
Those of us who knew we were in a party that was crusading for law reform were greatly encouraged by such distinguished persons categorically saying that we should get rid of the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords. It would be a great saving to dispense with the services of nine Law Lords, even on the proposals made in the Bill. The Attorney-General put forward the view that one appeal is enough if the appellate court is


sufficiently strong, as the Court of Appeal would be if it had the combined strength of both tribunals.

Sir J. Hobson: On a point of order. I thought that the Clause under discussion was dealing with the High Court. The Lords of Appeal in Ordinary were never part of the High Court. Is it in order to discuss them?

The Deputy-Chairman: No, it is not in order.

Mr. Abse: With great respect, I am seeking to see how we can rationalise the number of judges. The division in which they are employed is irrelevant. I am suggesting that we should accept the suggestion that was made by the Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor.

Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order. As I understand the Amendments, the proposal is to reduce the number from 63 to 60 or 57, according to which of the two Amendments we are discussing. With respect to the hon. Gentleman's argument, I cannot see how it can be in order to suggest that the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords should be abolished, simply because the effect might be to render a smaller number unnecessary. I respectfully submit that the only arguments which are relevant to these Amendments are those which suggest that 57 or 60 is a better number than 63.

The Deputy-Chairman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is completely right. We are discussing only the number of judges. We cannot discuss the reform of the judicature.

Mr. Abse: I cannot put forward that argument, and it would be quite wrong for me, despite the attempt to contain me by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who apparently finds my arguments embarrassing—

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. Order. The hon. Gentleman must remember that his proposal would entail legislation which is outside the scope of the present Bill. He must confine himself to the number of judges.

Mr. Abse: Yes; and in order to do that I suggest that we have to examine the arguments which the Attorney-General put forward during the Second

Reading of the Bill as to why it was that there should be an increase in the number of judges. To keep within the rules of order, I will direct my attention to the reasons why he thinks there should be an increase, and why I do not share that view.
It will be recalled that he gave three main causes for the need to increase the number. The first one was,
the continuing increase in criminal business arising unhappily from the continuing increase in crime".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th July 1965; Vol. 716, c. 649.]
Are we to say, when we have a reforming Lord Chancellor and a reforming Attorney, that when we have an increase in crime, to take the first point made by the Attorney-General as a justification for the increase, the only thing that we can and must do is to increase the number of judges? Is that the way in which this is intended to be dealt with? We know quite well that there are many other ways and I would have thought that it was our duty to consider other methods. When the Attorney-General put forward this, had he considered other methods?
3.30 a.m.
On Second Reading, my right hon. and learned Friend referred to the Streatfeild Report of some years ago. It considered how trials could be speeded up. For example, it considered whether there should be more Crown courts and whether that would mean that cases would be dealt with more expeditiously and whether judges could sit longer instead of having the present circuit system with all the difficulties which it entails. The Central Criminal Court and the London Sessions are continuously sitting criminal courts presided over by full-time salaried judges, but outside London, Manchester and Liverpool such continuously sitting criminal courts are unknown.
As the Streatfeild Committee conceded that continuously sitting Crown courts would not only provide speedier trials but more judge time for the civil assizes, we are entitled to ask whether there was not a sloppy approach to this question—"We have more work; let us get more judges"—or whether someone applied his intelligence—and there is no lack of that among our Law Officers—to consider


whether we should reconsider the Streatfeild Report at this time, since even its recommendation for not extending the Crown courts was clearly made at that moment of time. It was only by a slight balance that the Streatfeild Committee concluded that Crown courts should not be extended and it emphasised that that was its view at that time and that circumstances might alter such a view.
We should, therefore, examine whether we can rationalise the number of judges and get more cases going through Crown courts by having judges work longer.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of order. As the abolition of the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords is irrelevant, is it not equally irrelevant to discuss the contents of the Streatfeild Report? Is not the Amendment concerned only with the relative merits of two suggested numbers of puisne judges?

Mr. Abse: Further to that point of order. I have limited myself to High Court judges, but if we are propsing that there should be a certain number of High Court judges, surely I have to show how we can manage with that number of judges. This is not a matter of stating a number and leaving it at that. I am deploying arguments to demonstrate that fewer judges would be needed if the changes which we propose were adopted. When we are asked to increase the salaries and the number of judges, it would be quite wrong, especially in Committee, to be debarred from showing how what we propose could be done and how it would be more efficient than what is proposed and make it unnecessary to have the number of judges proposed.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman must apply his argument to the actual number of judges. He cannot put forward reductions which would require legislation, because that would fall outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Paget: Further to that point of order. If the Government say, "We want 63 judges" and the Amendment says, "You can do it with 60", surely it is in order for the mover of the Amendment to say, "I will show you how to do it with 60". Is not that what my hon. Friend is doing?

The Deputy-Chairman: It must be by administrative action and not by a method which requires legislation.

Mr. Abse: It may be—perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will tell us—that the existing Crown Court system could be extended. There exist the powers which established the courts in Manchester and Liverpool. I am, therefore, talking within the terms which you specify, Sir Samuel.
It would be a curious state of affairs if, when presented, as we are, with the suggestion that we have to increase the number of judges, we should be debarred in a debate of this kind from giving firm suggestions about how we can reduce the numbers. This is not a mathematical study. We are not naming numbers for their own sake. It would be a disrespect to the Committee if suddenly one produced a figure without being able to give weight of argument suggesting how or why we come to the conclusion that fewer judges are required.
I turn from that point since it disturbs the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), to whose extravagant speeches we have listened earlier. We could extend by administrative action the flying squads, as they were termed, which were recommended by the Streatfeild Report. That Report recommended that we should have flying squads of judges who, when there was pressure of work, could go out and could act in a way which would mean that they could descend, so to speak, in areas where there was a great deal of pressure of work.
When that recommendation has been made and has, I understand, been deployed in endeavouring to deal with the large number of cases that are coming before the courts, we are entitled to ask how the flying squads operate. Could not they be deployed a little more? Has consideration been given to the fact that judges might work a little longer and that the long vacation, which causes so much of the trouble, could be so arranged that more judges could go out in September as a flying squad in greater numbers?
The Streatfeild Report recommended that a small number of judges—three—should be available in the latter half of


September to act as a flying squad and so see to it that not everything was held up during the whole of August and September. That throws a burden upon judges. It may mean that more of them will have to work a litter harder.
That might not be such a bad thing. I do not underestimate the quality, character and weight of the judges' work. I certainly take the point which has been made that their work does not consist only of the hours they sit in court. When, however, we are asked for more judges, we are entitled to ask whether the Government have considered the manner and methods by which we could speed up the administration of justice. We are the only civilised country in the world where it is not possible for it to be known in any case any length of time beforehand when it will be heard.
It is, therefore, no encouragement to those who appreciate the zeal and the attention that exists for reform when there is no suggestion that there is to be a speed-up or a deployment on a wider scale of some of the suggestions made within the Streatfeild Report which might prevent the necessity for increasing the number of judges. Are there not other ways? For example, could we not see to it that, instead of jealousy preserving the jurisdiction of the judges—who are so jealous of preserving so many offences which come to them and them alone—instead of merely deploring the weight of criminal work which has to go to the the assizes, ask, as the Streatfeild Report began to ask, whether more offences should be taken in quarter sessions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Legislation."]

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is again proposing legislation, and that is outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. W. Howie: Behave yourself.

Mr. Abse: If my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) has anything to say, whether from the Front Bench or the back benches, he had better get to his feet and say it.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to turn round and usurp your function, Sir Samuel, and tell another hon. Member to behave himself?

The Deputy-Chairman: I have already called the hon. Member to order.

Mr. Abse: What we have presented to us is a sloppy bit of work, because it has come, not as some of us think it should come, as part of a package deal. We have heard of package deals in relation to other matters. If there is to be any support for the feeling that there is genuine anxiety to increase the number of judges, we should have some proposals from the Attorney-General as to how judges intend to increase their productivity. I regard it as highly unfortunate that we have merely a bare demand on the basis of their existing work, with no suggestion about how we could cut down their work.
Occasionally, we hear glimmers. For example, we had one from the Attorney-General, who moved on from speaking about the pressure of criminal work—giving no suggestion as to how it could be dealt with in any other way than by judges—to telling us, with considerable concern, about the increase in the number of divorces. This is very sad. He accompanied his comments in this case by telling us how unfortunate it was that county court judges had to be used as commissioners because there were so many divorces and proposed seriously that this was a good reason for increasing the number of divorce judges. I am pleased to see that, in a Parliamentary reply—I presume that the right hand knows what the left hand is doing—the Minister without Portfolio said that it is intended that certain divorce jurisdiction should be given to the county court judges.
I confess that I find it odd that, at a time when the Attorney-General is deploying arguments that, by implication, the quality and calibre of our county court judges, who are metamorphosed temporarily into commissioners, may be a cause for complaint and that therefore we had better get more High Court judges, it is intended for judges of the county court to deal in some measure with divorce cases. If we have more divorce cases—as, unhappily, projection appears to make likely—is that all that will be done, that we will be asked for more High Court judges? Is no other idea to be presented, or are the jealous vested interests of the judges to be maintained? Are they prepared to look


seriously at revolutionising the administration of justice in this country?
If we are not prepared to adopt a reforming attitude as administrators of justice, we shall attract the same type of opprobrium as is rightly attracted by sluggish manufacturers who fail to adapt themselves to a changing world. The Attorney-General argues that there are difficulties and that there are no alternatives.
3.45 a.m.
The next argument presented, when the Attorney-General has finished drawing attention to the increased number of divorces, is the fact of the increased number of cases involving wards of court. I recall that when this matter came before Parliament recently it excited the interest of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). Has no consideration been given to the many views which have been expressed about this subject being an inappropriate jurisdiction for judges, that wards of court—

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is again indicating legislation.

Mr. Abse: When legislation was coming forward involving increased salaries and an increased number of judges, it would certainly have gained more respect among my hon. Friends if, at the same time, it contained proposals for reforming the administration of justice in manners and methods, in a way that would not have necessitated merely an increase in the number of judges.
I move the Amendment because I do not think that it is the function of a reforming Administration to take this action without asking themselves—while they ask the country not to ask for more and not to employ excessive labour without at the same time considering how they can be efficient—how they can be more efficient.
It is no use lawyers, who have a vested interest in the administration of the Bill, seeking to persuade the Committee that all is the best possible, that nothing can be improved and that all is so well that we need merely give more money and appoint more and more judges. That is not good enough. The motivation

behind my opposition to the Bill is not only founded on objections to these massive increases in salary but because it is the type of Measure which I did not exject would come from a reforming Administration. I say that because the Bill has come barren of suggestions as to how we can change and rationalise the law in a way that would not cause extra burdens to be placed on the community.
As it stands, the Clause protects restrictive practices in the fullest sense of the term. It preserves jurisdiction for particular people. It means that it prevents any distribution of the load. It means that we ossify all that is already in existence without considering how, in a fluid and elastic way, we may not have to make the demands that are made by the Bill on the public purse. I hope that the Attorney-General will not regard this as a sour comment but as a comment coming from someone who is deeply concerned about the Bill, which, as drafted, asks a lot of the community but gives precious little to it.

The Attorney-General: Had we world enough and time, and were it in order to do so, this would be a great theme—the theme of law reform. I do not know whether I will ever convince my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) if I repeat that we are devotedly assiduously applying ourselves to the overhauling of the whole range of the administration of justice—criminal, civil and divorce as well. It is not a matter that can be disclosed at this stage. We have been in office for nine months. We have already taken major measures in law reform and in regard to the administration of justice.
Other major measures have also been carried out in recent years. In particular, there were the changes that followed the Streatfeild Committee, and many others are on the way. I am not in a position to disclose at this stage the immediate steps that will be vouchsafed to my hon. Friend before very long, and also, perhaps, to colleagues in this House who may have more confidence in their colleagues on the Front Bench than he has.
It is all very well for my hon. Friend to utter these honeyed words constantly, but constantly to suggest that nothing is being done does no credit to my hon. Friend's confidence in the Lord Chancellor or in myself as people who are, in


one voice, described as reformers and, in the other voice impliedly described as doing absolutely nothing. I am reaching the point where this is becoming intolerable, and perhaps my hon. Friend will forgive me for saying this to him quite frankly. If he wants to say something, let him say it.

Mr. Abse: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend why a Bill of this kind cannot be postponed in order to let us see the results of some of the things that are happening? This is a Bill for which there is no urgency or necessity, and one for which no one is clamouring. We would then have proof of the reforming zeal of which my right hon. and learned Friend speaks.

The Attorney-General: The way in which my hon. Friend finds himself capable of saying that his opinion is that of the generality suggests to me that he is losing both his sense of humour and his sense of proportion. I want the Committee to know that these matters of law reform are urgently being pursued, and the fruits of our present labours will be disclosed to the House before very long. I am not able to say more about that now—indeed, as legislation is involved, I would be out of order to do so.
As to my hon. Friend's suggestions about reforms in the criminal law, most active consideration was given by the Streatfeild Committee to the possibility of the extension of the Crown courts. He knows perfectly well the limitations that were so clearly pointed out by the Streatfeild Committee's Reports. It is quite true that consideration can be given, and is being given, to a radical change in the machinery of justice in England resulting from the concentration of criminal and civil business in the big centres of population, so that the judges who deal with both civil and criminal justice would be sufficiently numerous not to become isolated, as judges in Crown courts tend to do. But we cannot have such a system without the most careful examination of all the problems of principle and practice that are involved.
I do not suppose it gives my hon. Friend any comfort when I assure him that this sort of study is being conducted. When he speaks, if I may say so, in excessively facile terms of the divorce

situation, the fact is that to transfer undefended divorces to the county courts would hardly have any effect at all on the demands on the time of the High Court judges at all, because they never, or hardly ever, try undefended divorces. The undefended divorce is tried in the county court by the divorce commissioners. I am not aware whether he recognises that it has been suggested that County Courts should try defended cases. There is a body of opinion thinking along those lines; there was the Morton Report, and other Reports, but if that happened it would represent a revolutionary move and bring chaos to the county courts.
So, my hon. Friend must not say that these things have not been thought about. They have, but so have the difficulties which they would raise; but, so far as undefended cases in the county courts are concerned, the matter is under active consideration. We are also concerned about the immense cost of divorce and this is a matter obviously receiving urgent consideration. The problem we have to face is that the considerable increase in crime and in divorce work, and pressure on the Chancery Division, calls for immediate measures; long-term measures, calling for careful thought. My noble Friend is actively engaged on them at present, but for the moment we need more judges in the Queen's Bench and other divisions. I assure the Committee that no new appointment will be made without consideration of its necessity by the Lord Chancellor, and each appointment will have to have the approval of the Treasury; and I can also assure the Committee that, from my personal knowledge of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, it is unlikely that any appointment will be made unless the need for it is proved to be absolutely essential.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My Amendment is not one which I intend to put to the vote. It is intended to be a probing Amendment in order that the Committee shall have an explanation of why the number of High Court judges shall be increased from fifty-six to sixty-three. I do not think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has adduced enough explanation about the work which the judges are already doing to substantiate the case for this increase of seven in the number of such judges.
Could he give some information about the hours which the existing judges work; the weeks or months in each year during which they work, and whether they are all fully engaged? What is the necessity for this extra seven? I should have thought that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) and other hon. Members opposite would have supported this Amendment. I well remember that on many issues which have come before the House those right hon. and hon. Members opposite who are present at the moment have attacked the Government for alleged wasteful expenditure, alleged wasteful misuse of people who had been appointed to various posts because their object then was to cut Government expenditure—unnecessary expenditure—and to see that there was not a proliferation of appointments.
If the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone was really interested in cutting down Government expenditure, then here is a way of doing it; because these seven extra judges, if and when they are appointed—and some hon. Members of the House will no doubt get some of the appointments—will have to be paid. They will be paid at enhanced rates, and my hon. Friends and I have a duty and a right to speak on this matter because we have tried to get the Government to spend money for really necessary purposes, such as the needs of local authorities. We have always been told that the money is not there and that the Government cannot do these things because they cannot spare the money. If the Government did not appoint these seven extra judges, there would be a saving of the equivalent of their salaries and expenses. [Interruption.] A Whip on the Government Front Bench keeps making interjections. If he would care to get up and make an interjection which I can hear clearly, I can deal with it, but these interruptions are disconcerting.

4.0 a.m.

Mr. Howie: I said "Hear, hear". I hope that did not offend my hon. Friend.

Mr. Lewis: I would rather that my hon. Friend made an interjection so that I could deal with it.

Mr. Howie: I made it and my hon. Friend heard it.

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. We would make better progress if the hon. Member did not continue to make interjections.

Mr. Lewis: I have been trying to get the Government to do various things which I admit would cost money. For example, I have asked that there should be lower rates of interest in my constituency. The Government say that the money is not available. If the Attorney-General accepted this Amendment there would not be this increase in Government expenditure and the money saved could be spent on a worthy cause. I hoped that the Attorney-General would say that the judges are having to stay up all night working extra hours, or that they were working at week-ends, but he did not give any explanation. All he said was that seven extra judges were needed. If he gave facts and figures to show that they are necessary I would not press my Amendment.

Mr. Paget: I had not intended to intervene on this Amendment and I would not have done so but for the reproof by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). That led me to the conclusion that my right hon. and learned Friend had not understood or appreciated what my hon. Friend said. He and I am are not saying that the Government are not considering law reform. Of course they are; the Minister without Portfolio was appointed for that very purpose. We are saying that the Government exhort everyone else to link wage increases with productivity increases and it is not contended that the administration of justice is sufficiently organised. My right hon. and learned Friend and the Lord Chancellor are on record as having expressed their opinion that it is not. It needs reorganising and I understand that it is being reorganised. When those proposals come forward that surely will the time for wage increases to come forward, if they are necessary, also. We are simply asking that the Government should themselves link wage increases to productivity increases, which they ask everyone else to do. When my hon. Friend explained that, the Attorney-General ought not to have reproved him.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is the Attorney-General not to deal with the new points we have put to him?

The Attorney-General: I was not aware that there were any new points raised. I explained on Second Reading how it was that the immense increase in crime and criminal work, the immense increase in divorce work and in the work of the Chancery Division, necessitated more judges. If my hon. Friend want to know judges' hours of work, if it is any help to him, a court day is from 10.30 to 4.30.
At assizes it is usually necessary to sit till half-past five or six o'clock for the disposal of the lists. I do not know what experience my hon. Friend has of being in court, but judicial work requires complete concentration and is extremely tiring. He ought to know—indeed, I inform him—that, in addition to sitting in court, judges have to write their judgments, prepare summings-up, read depositions at assizes of transcripts of proceedings which are subject to appeal in the Court of Appeal and in the Court of Criminal Appeal. They are immensely busy and hard-worked men and it is a pretty exhausting profession.

Amendment negatived.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am of the opinion that the principle of the Clause has been adequately discussed on the Amendment. I shall therefore put the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" forthwith.

Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(SHORT TITLE, CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS, REPEALS AND COMMENCEMENT.)

The Deputy-Chairman: The next Amendment selected is No. 28. We can discuss with this Amendment Amendment No. 26, in page 3, line 1, leave out from "Act" to "shall" in line 2.
And Amendment No. 27, in page 3, line 3, leave out "1st April 1966" and insert:
a day to be appointed by Her Majesty by Order in Council being a date not earlier than

the day after the General Election following the passing of this Act".
I call Sir Douglas Glover.

Mr. Mendelson: For want of a better man, I beg to move Amendment No. 28, Clause 5, in page 3, line 3, leave out "1966"and insert"1967".
The Amendment has as its main burden of argument an inquiry into the reasons why the Government are insisting that the Bill be passed now and why the effective date of its coming into force must be as stated in the Bill. This involves a further inquiry as to how the Government came to decide on these dates. It is agreed on both sides that we are at the tail end of a particularly busy period. On many occasions during Business questions the Leader of the House has stated that he might have to crowd a great deal of work into the last few weeks of the Session. Yet we have this Bill at the tail end, without any consultation with the members of the majority party supporting the Government, without any prior knowledge for any of us that such a Bill was coming, but obviously with at least some anticipation on the part of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), whose violent and vehement intervention earlier, full of sound and fury, far from bringing aid and comfort to my right hon. and learned Friend, will be a great embarrassment to him when the speech is read in the constituencies which we represent.
That brings me to the most important question I want to put to the Attorney-General. Is there any reason which involves the alleged agreement between the former Administration and the Shadow Cabinet of the Labour Party when the Labour Party was in opposition which insists upon this date? It is remarkable that we have not throughout these debates, neither on Second Reading nor during the Committee stage, had a clear answer as to how this agreement came about, who were the contracting parties, whether it was an agreement or merely an understanding. On no occasion when this matter has been raised have those right hon. Members opposite who were members of the Cabinet in the former Administration—the former Attorney-General told the House on Second Reading that he was not a member of the Cabinet but was a


member of the Government—given us an explanation as to what part they played in this agreement.
All the right hon. Gentlemen opposite who have been taking part in these debates have been protesting that they entered into no agreement and that they did not know of any agreement. The right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) said that he was a member of the Cabinet at the time but that he in no way took part in any agreement. Tonight the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) is here and we may hear from him. He was a member of the Government at that time. There is a clear contradiction between assertions on the other side of the Committee that right hon. Gentlemen opposite were not a party to an agreement and the argument advanced by the present Government that such an implied agreement existed and therefore they are in honour bound to bring in this legislation.
Many of my hon. Friends are insisting that a clear answer must be given by the Government either now or during the further stages of the Bill whether such an agreement existed and how it came about, because there is involved here an element of policy of the greatest importance. Many of the suggestions made to the Government in our Amendments have been rejected by the Attorney-General. No reason so far has been given by the Government why they have insisted on making no concessions whatever to us on the Amendments and have not even been prepared to consider the Amendments carefully, and while they have had the support of hon. and right hon. Members opposite my suspicion has been growing that there must have been some agreement. Some hon. and right hon. Members opposite have been the only people who have supported the Bill and completely supported the attitude of the Government in resisting every Amendment.

Sir J. Hobson: It was a very good Bill. We said that we would introduce it and the former Lord Chancellor gave a pledge that if we had been in power we would have introduced it. I do not think that it is surprising therefore that we should now be supporting it.

Mr. Mendelson: It is surprising, because there were other hon. and right hon. Members opposite including a former Secretary of State for Scotland who was a member of the Cabinet and therefore of the policy-making body who said that there was no agreement. The former Secretary of State said, "There was no agreement. I was no party to it and therefore I oppose the Bill." That assumption therefore on the part of the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) breaks down at the first attempt to analyse the situation. We have just heard that there had been an announcement by a senior officer of the previous Administration but we have not heard from the present Attorney-General whether or not there is any substantive evidence of there having been an agreement.
There is no reason why the Government should not agree that the effective date of the Bill coming into force should not be postponed to 1967. In recent months there have been a number of applications for increases in wages and salaries and a number of negotiations. Some claims are under arbitration. In some cases the effective date has been postponed whilst in others appeals have been made to consider a limited increase year by year over a period of three years so that at the end of the three years the full increase will have been given. But this is not the method proposed for these substantial increases. The Government might have said that they thought that these salaries ought to be increased but that a three-year period, as in other cases, would have been a reasonable period over which to introduce them. The Government might have suggested that the total increase should thus be split into three, or they might have said, "We must deal with the matter, but we are in a particularly difficult financial and economic situation and it is sensible to appeal to some of the senior servants of the State to wait another year".
The burden of my argument has considerable support on these benches and in the country, and we ought to have a detailed explanation whether the Government are in honour bound and committed to the Bill; secondly, whether they are in honour bound and committed by an agreement with the other side of the


Committee to this date; and thirdly, if they are not so committed, why they insist that it must be introduced now and must come into effect in 1966. Many of my hon. Friends attach more importance to this Amendment than to some of the other Amendments. If there are no satisfactory answers to the questions which I have put, then the Government's case falls to the ground.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. Sir Samuel, have you called Amendment No. 27?

Mr. Deputy-Chairman: I called Amendment No. 28 and I said that we could discuss with it Amendments Nos. 26 and 27.

4.15 a.m.

Mr. Hogg: Despite the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) put his name to Amendments which he did not feel disposed to move when you called him, Sir Samuel, I must say that this Amendment reflects as clearly as ever the meanness and hypocrisy of the attitude underlying the opposition to the Bill, because it proposes to postpone the date of the increases in salary to the judiciary by a year. The alleged ground for that is that others have to negotiate for higher wages.
This is, again, an attempt to gain a little meretricious popularity with the more gullible of hon. Members' constituents. But when hon. Members' salaries were increased nobody suggested postponing the increase for a year. On the contrary, Members' salaries were increased with the approbation of most hon. Members opposite while the old-age pensioners had to wait. I have never heard such hypocrisy in my life, and I shall vote against the Amendment.

Mr. Paget: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman include in his strictures his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), who took the same line as the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover)?

Mr. Hogg: As far as I know, my right hon. and learned Friend was not at all in the same situation as my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk, who very conspicuously did not move his Amendments.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am glad that I have an opportunity to discuss my Amendment immediately after the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) has spoken, because I want to refresh his memory. The present Opposition, when in Government in 1954, did exactly what is suggested in my Amendment. In 1954 there was an agreement on judges' salaries and hon. Members' salaries. The then Government promised that if the increases for judges were approved, they would deal with hon. Members' salaries, but in the 1922 Committee, led by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), they reneged and said that hon. Members' salaries would have to wait until after the General Election. In the same way, these proposals were discussed before the last General Election and the right hon. and learned Gentleman, with the support of the present Government, said that whatever proposals were made by the Lawrence Committee, they would not apply until after the General Election.
I have put down my Amendment to make the Bill apply after the next general election because at no time since 1954 has the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marlebone, who sits there sniggering, or any member of his party or of the Government suggested that there would be an increase in judges' salaries. Ever since 1954, there has been discussion of Members' salaries, but Members had to wait for ten years and two committees of inquiry before anything was done. There was a Select Committee, and the Conservative Government reneged on the outcome of that. They said, "Wait till after the election", and they reneged on that.
Did either the previous Government or this Government, or any member of either party, say publicly in the House or in the country that there would be this increase? Was any hint or inkling given of it? I want my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to note these questions and to be good enough to answer them when he replies. Why did not the Government put this proposal in the Queen's Speech? If it was agreed between both sides in March, 1964, why was not a public declaration made at some time before or during the election campaign? Why was not it put in the Labour Party manifesto?
I am not attacking my own side only. What about the Tories? Why did not they make a public statement? We are told that there was a statement in another place. Why not here? Why in another place, the non-elected, non-democratic, antediluvian other place?

Mr. Hogg: I have two points of order to raise, Mr. Jennings. First, I understand that it is contrary to the comity of Parliament for one House to make a direct attack on the other. Second, the Committee is discussing an Amendment to postpone the date of operation of the Bill. I submit that the hon. Gentleman is wholly out of order on both counts.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. J. C. Jennings): The hon. Member is certainly out of order in attacking another place. On the second point of order, he would be well advised to stick to the terms of the Amendment and deal with the dates 1966 and 1967.

Mr. Lewis: I was told by your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Jennings, that my Amendment No. 27 was to be discussed with this Amendment. My Amendment deals with this very issue—
being a date not earlier than a day after the general election following the passing of this Act.
The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone is wrong. My argument is exactly in order, and I am speaking to my Amendment in preference to the one which proposes the date 1967. Let us wait till after the next General Election.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is quite right that we are taking Amendments No. 26 and No. 27 with this one, and I think that in our perambulations we have now got back into order.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you very much, Mr. Jennings.
So now the right hon. and learned Gentleman can appreciate that he was dealing in his speech with an Amendment he knew not of. I want to emphasise and re-emphasise that when I attack my own side I am careful to be fair, by saying that more blame lies on the present Opposition, because they were the Government when, on several occasions, they pledged their word that

they would do something after the election. They did not do it. Neither my own party, nor the right hon. and learned Gentleman, nor the present Leader of the Opposition—if there is one: I do not know whether there is one or not at the moment—or perhaps the future Leader, made any declaration during the period of the General Election about this matter. If I attacked the other House, I withdraw the attack. Far be it for me even to think of attacking it. But I think it better that a statement on an issue like this should be made in this democratically elected place rather than in another place.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Would the hon. Member not agree that the statement made on 24th March last year was not a statement but an answer to a question? If such a question had been asked in this House no doubt the same answer would have been given.

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Member knows as well as I do that a Question can be sponsored as well in another place as in this, and as well in this place as in another. I am sure there were plenty of hon. and learned Members opposite who were then in the Government who would have been pleased to put down a Question to the then Attorney-General asking about this, and I am sure the then Attorney-General would have been pleased to have given that answer. Then we could all have known about it, and discussed it, and we might have put a few supplementary questions. We should at least have had some inkling of it. This was not put in the Conservative Party's manifesto, and it was not in the Liberal Party's. I cannot see any Liberals here. If I am wrong, I am sorry; I do not want to attack them, and especially not in their absence. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not mention it during the last election, although he made a number of speeches at that time. He did not mention it. Perhaps he was bonkers or something; I do not know. But he never once referred to judges or judges' salaries.
What we have to do now is to take the electorate into our confidence. Let us go to the country and say, "We are going to increase judges' salaries. Both parties are agreed about this and are willing to do it, but we leave it to you, but now you know about it." That is what the


Tory Party suggested should be done about Members' salaries. It said it on three occasions and eventually it was carried out.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman made reference to Members' salaries. I wish he would understand the vast difference between that proposal and this. There were three inquiries into our salaries, and on two of them the party opposite reneged. It said it would implement the third after the General Election. There is no need for the two right hon. and learned Gentlemen to prompt each other to get up on points of order. The point is that this matter should be left till after the next General Election, and I am giving my reasons why.

Mr. Maxwell: Get on with it, Arthur. With all due respect, the point has been more than amply made. It is nearly 5 o'clock in the morning. Need we really bear the burden of having things repeated three or four or five times?

4.30 a.m.

Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend was not here when I repeated things not four or five times but 400 or 500 times to get salaries increased. My hon. Friend probably did not know how many of our people needed the increase. I fought and struggled for the increase, very often against hon. Members like my hon. Friend, and we had speeches from the benches opposite—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. One gets a little tired of individual altercations and of hon. Members usurping the authority of the Chair and admonishing other hon. Members. If we can leave Members' salaries alone and get on with the point at issue, we will make much better progress.

Mr. Lewis: I was answering the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has mentioned this subject every time he has spoken, and I was seeking to—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. That was not the case at all. The hon. Member was answering an intervention by his hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell), and I am asking him to stick to the terms of the Amendments, particularly the one in his name.

Mr. Lewis: My Amendment says that a decision on this matter should be postponed until after the next General Election, and in support of that contention I am reminding the Committee that on three separate occasions—I shall not mention Members' salaries—the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends did that on vital issues. They suggested that decisions on those issues should be left over so that the electorate could express their views on them.
We have not had a crumb of satisfaction from the Attorney-General tonight. On three occasions I have asked him for a definite answer. Much as we love and respect my right hon. and learned Friend, much as we feel that we might have got the best of the argument, is it, or is it not, true that he is in the awful situation that the Lord Chancellor will not allow him to give anything away? Is it the case that the Lord Chancellor will not budge one-quarter of an inch?
I am very concerned about the situation. I am arguing that a decision on this matter should be left over until after the next election because I want to be able to tell people that a democratically elected House of Commons postponed a decision on the matter to enable the people to express their views on it. It appears that what I shall have to say is, "That is what I wanted to do, but a man who was not elected, and who was responsible to no-one, insisted that you should not have the right to express your views on this important issue". If that is wrong, I shall be pleased to be told so, and we might then be able to make some progress with the Bill.

The Attorney-General: I have said repeatedly in this debate that this Bill is a Government Measure for which the Government are responsible and which they have decided to introduce after the most careful consideration by the Cabinet. It is not the Lord Chancellor's Bill. It is not the Attorney-General's Bill. It is a Bill brought in by the Government who are ruling the country, and who intend to continue to do so.
Let me deal with one or two of the matters which have been put to me with increasing vehemence by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson). This Bill is put forward by the Government on its merits. Whether or


not there was an earlier agreement by a previous Shadow Cabinet when the Parliamentary Labour Party was in Opposition is completely irrelevant to the merits of the Bill. If there was such an agreement, it would not be binding on this Government, nor on any of the Members of it, or the Members behind it. It would have no constitutional effect, and no binding effect. The Government are free, as are hon. Members, to make their decision on this matter on its merits.
Any suggestion of threats or intimidation from my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor or anyone else is the sheerest nonsense. The position about the then Government of the day is that it was intimated that the announcement was to be made in the House of Lords. No objection was registered by the Shadow Cabinet to the making of that announcement that judges' salaries would be increased. An express commitment was made in the House of Lords by the then Lord Chancellor, and I have been very pleased to see that in this debate, at any rate, full support to the Bill has been given by the Opposition, who were committed to the Bill by the answer of the Lord Chancellor in March of last year. But, whatever the nature of any understandings that were entered into at that time, the matter has now to be dealt with by the Committee upon its merits, and it is in that light that I ask the Committee to look at it.
It is suggested in this crop of three Amendments that there should be further postponement of the application of the Bill. It does not take effect, so far as salaries go, until April of next year, and that means that the Lord Chancellor, for instance, unlike the other Ministers, has to wait yet another year for his increase to take effect.
The suggestion that the Bill should postpone having this matter raised as an issue until a General Election and then raising it as a political issue in the General Election would be in complete contravention of the accepted constitutional understanding of the status and independence of the judiciary. I can think of few things more unattractive than to throw this most sensitive aspect of the machinery of government into the whirlpool of an election issue.
The increase in the number of judges will be required almost immediately—probably two in the Queen's Bench Division and probably two in the Divorce Division, as I said earlier.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) asked why the Bill was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech. Not every piece of legislation that is later found to be necessary and expedient is mentioned in the Queen's Speech, and there is no constitutional requirement that it should be. The Government have decided at the end of this session that it is proper to introduce the Measure. It is necessary, and necessary now. I invite the Committee to reject the Amendments.

Sir D. Glover: I will not detain the Committee more than a moment over the Amendment that stands in my name, although I was minded differently when it was actually called, and that is not surprising in view of some of the speeches that have come from the other side.
I thought when I put my Amendment down that I was being very helpful to the Government. I listened to the debate the other night and decided that, as usual, they had got themselves into considerable difficulty. Being a man whose objects in life are reasonableness and accommodation, I thought that by putting down my Amendment I would be getting them out of their difficulty.
It appeared to me that there had been some agreement by what is now the Opposition Front Bench in March of last year, and that the obligations entered into by them had been accepted by what is now the Government Front Bench who, at that time, were the Opposition. When you enter agreements, Mr. Jennings, you have to take account of the circumstances of the time. It is perfectly proper for a human being to say, "Tomorrow I will take you for a sail in my yacht round the harbour".

The Temporary Chairman: Does the hon. Gentleman mean me?

Sir D. Glover: I would be only too delighted if you would come with me, Mr. Jennings, but I am speaking only metaphorically because I do not have one. I have not had rises of this sort lately and that is why I do not have a yacht. But if I had and I made that offer and


the next morning I found that a hurricane was blowing, I would not think that I was committed to taking you round the harbour.

The Temporary Chairman: That would be completely out of order.

Sir D. Glover: We would postpone it until the weather improved.
I suggest my Amendment with similar considerations in mind. I am the last person to join in the criticisms of judges made by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). The judges deserve the very high reputation and position which they enjoy in our society. However, as a result of the activities of the Government since they came to power, a hurricane has been blowing and it would seem to be foolish to take the boat out at this moment. It is better for the Government not to break any implied commitment about passing the Bill into law, but to postpone its operation until not just April next year, but April of the following year.
I thought that my Amendment would help the Government out of their difficulty and I hope that in its wisdom the Committee will accept the Amendment which would remove many of the difficulties of hon. Members opposite and at the same time allow the Government to keep within what they consider to be the ambit of their agreement with the Conservative Government which made a statement in another place 18 months ago, so that they could postpone the operation of the Bill until the economic climate had improved.

Mr. Michael Foot: I was disappointed by the reply of my right hon and learned Friend because his case could not be substantiated. For example, he said that it would be shocking if the salaries of judges were to be discussed at a general election, and I noticed that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) strongly concurred with that view. The people who elect us to the House of Commons have a right to know about the things on which we vote, and to suggest that it is improper that this matter should never come within the purview of the people who elect us is an extraordinary view.

The Attorney-General: I said that it was clearly undesirable that it should

become a party political issue at a General Election. That was the point I was trying to make.

Mr. Foot: That depends on the attitude taken up by the parties toward it. I do not think that there is anything undesirable in one party in the State saying that salaries of this nature are too big for judges. There is nothing improper about the matter being publicly debated. We have discussed it. It is quite wrong for us to say that we are superior people who have a right to discuss these things and that we are capable of discussing them, but that the people who elected us have no such right and are not capable of discussing them. The incomes of everybody else in the country are now a primary matter of public debate and yet we are suddenly told that the incomes of judges are not to be discussed, or, rather, discussed only at this very late hour of the night, and it is not our fault that they are being discussed at this time.
We are also told that there was an express statement by the previous Government that these increases in the salaries of judges would be made and that we are here carrying out that pledge. Even if we were to concede that that committed the present Government, which I deny, when that express statement was made we did not know that we were to have an £800 million deficit in the balance of payments.
4.45 a.m.
We did not know that the Government of this country—a Labour Government, which I wish to see in office for many years to come and whose success in being in office may well depend upon the support which we can command among people about what should be an incomes policy—would in very difficult circumstances have to enunciate an incomes policy; we did not know this when that express statement was made on behalf of the previous Government in the House of Lords. And now we are told that we are absolutely bound by a statement made in March, 1964, irrespective of all the economic circumstances which have intervened, and that this must take precedence over everything else, or over a great deal of other matters.
It is a very curious Bill that is before the House of Commons. Look at the


date when the Bill is to come into force—1st April, 1966. It may be that the judges will never get their increase. That would be a good joke after all the discussion that we have had. Today is 23rd July, 1965. It is a strange Bill to have to pass, not quite nine months ahead of when it is to come into operation.
It would have been quite possible to introduce a Bill in October or November to enable the judges to have a salary increase on 1st April, 1966, when the Government say that it is essential. There is nothing to stop the Government postponing the Bill until the autumn. Why did they have to bring it in now? The only answer that we have been given on this technicality is that the commitment—which, we are told, is not really a commitment, because it is solely on its merit that the Government are presenting the Bill—was that the Measure had to be introduced this Session. That is why it is being hurried through.
There have been lots of complaints tonight about Members of Parliament being kept up very late. I do not like staying up late any more than anybody else, but the decision of the Government was that this Measure was to be introduced and forced through the House of Commons, the Second Reading starting at 10 o'clock at night and the Committee stage starting at 10 o'clock at night. Therefore, it was the decision of the Government that this Measure should be pressed through the House of Commons, all stages of it, late at night.
The Judges' Remuneration Bill, 1954, to which we have had so many references by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, was introduced at 3.30 in the afternoon. The Government may say that they have not the time to introduce this Measure in the daytime, and I understand that. There are many more urgent Measures than this one, so I am not complaining. But why not put it off until the autumn? The Attorney-General has not given one valid reason why this Measure must be pushed through now. That is why we object. We are entitled to have reasons given to us by the Government.
We have had a most remarkable Finance Bill this Session in which more concessions—I am not complaining—have been given to the Opposition than,

possibly, in any previous Finance Bill. Not one concession was given to this side of the Committee. The Government Front Bench knows very well the feeling in the Labour Party on this matter. They know that many Members of the Labour Party, whose feelings I respect and who feel just as strongly as I and other hon. Members do about judges' salaries and the date when they are being introduced, have decided, because of reasons of delicacy, good manners or eagerness not to offend their comrades—I understand it well—not to participate in this debate although they feel as strongly as we do.
The Government knew from the day they introduced the Bill how hot was the feeling against it, yet they have done nothing to move towards recognising the feelings on the back benches of the Labour Party. They were quite prepared to make concessions involving hundreds of millions of pounds when hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the Committee made protests, but not a penny has been taken off this Bill in order to accommodate hon. Gentlemen on this side. That is not a proper way to treat the Labour Party and the hon. Gentlemen on this side of the Committee. I am a strong supporter of the Government—I want to see them succeed—but they will not succeed by these methods. They will only do injury to their own cause. I am not prepared, as a Member of Parliament, to think that my duties are performed merely by coming to the House and having a Bill which I detest thrown at me and be told, "You have to swallow it and take it, and if it so happens to be decided by the Government that the only discussions will take place late at night"—

The Temporary Chairman: I have listened very patiently. The argument is generally relevant, but the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) is now being guilty of some tedious repetition. I should be grateful if he would get back to the Amendment and its terms.

Mr. Foot: I have no desire to be irrelevant, Mr. Jennings. I am merely saying that, in view of the representations which have been made to the Government in open debate and in the meetings of the Party—which is deeply concerned about this matter—and in representations which I am sure that the Government have had from bodies throughout the country, I


should have thought that, in its own interests and in the interests of decent Parliamentary Government, the Government would have sought to make some acceptable concession, at least to those who have pressed their views. They could have done it on this Amendment by saying: "We shall postpone it for a year", or at least agreed that there should be further discussion about the date on which these measures come into operation. That would have been an act of courtesy and political wisdom. It would have done the Government good, not merely on this Bill but on other Bills.
Who is saying that we must have this Bill in exactly the form—with every comma and Clause—in which it was presented to the House? If the Government treat the House of Commons like that, they will do injury to themselves and to the House of Commons.
Therefore, at this last moment, I make the same plea which I made to the Attorney-General at the end of the Second Reading debate. I urge the Government to consider the feelings of their own supporters. They have a right to do it, they have a duty to do it, and they could have done it on this Bill. They could have done it with no loss of face, without having to show signs of weakness. They need merely have shown that they have some respect for debate in the House of Commons. But if they refuse to show such respect, they must not be surprised if they have to sit up late many other nights, because the only sanction left to Members of Parliament is to say, "If Ministers will not give way, they will have to listen."
In the case which we have tried to present, the Government know that we speak for the majority of hon. Members in the House and for the overwhelming majority of people throughout the country. What we have been debating touches on a central part of the doctrines of Socialism—how we are to share fairly the wealth which we possess and create. This Government's survival depends on convincing the country that we are seeking to share that wealth fairly. In these discussions, the back benchers have shown that they know how to do it, but the Government, I am sorry to say, have not.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1.—(JUDICIAL SALARIES.)

The following Amendment stood upon the Notice Paper:

Amendment No. 88, in page 4, line 8, to leave out "£11,250" and to insert "£10,000".

Mr. Paget: I agree with every word which my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has said. The Government have been in difficulty over, for example, their Vietnam policy, but I have backed them because I think that they have been right on that. I have criticised them because of their policy on this Bill. I have done so sincerely and with nothing but good will for the Government. The point of the Amendment has already been discussed and, therefore, I do not propose to move it.

Mr. Forbes Hendry: I beg to move, Amendment No. 44, Schedule 1, in page 4, line 10, to leave out "£10,000" and to insert "£8,250".

The Temporary Chairman: I suggest that the Committee should discuss at the same time the following Amendments to Schedule 1: Amendment No. 47, in line 11, leave out "£10,000" and insert "£12,500".

Amendment No. 50, in line 12, leave out "£9,750" and insert "£11,250".

Amendment No. 55, in page 4, leave out line 13 and insert:


Ordinary Lord of Session


Inner House
…
…
…
£10,000


Outer House
…
…
…
£8,250.

Amendment No. 57, in line 14, leave out "£9,375" and insert "£12,500".

Amendment No. 59, in line 15, leave out "£8,125" and insert "£10,000".

Amendment No. 62, in line 17, leave out "£8,125" and insert "£8,250".

Amendment No. 64, in line 17, leave out "£8,125" and insert "£10,000".

Mr. Hendry: The purpose of this series of Amendments is to try to bring into line the salaries of judges in England, Scotland and Ireland respectively. I raised this question on Second Reading when I asked the Scottish Minister who was present at the time, the


Minister of State, why this discrepancy had occurred. I asked him if he would move an Amendment later to bring Scottish judges into line with their counterparts in England and Wales, and I also mentioned the question of Irish judges. The Minister of State gave me no reply on that occasion. Indeed, he left the debate before it had ended and took no part in the summing up.
I call your attention, Mr. Jennings, to the fact that in this debate there is no Scottish Minister on the Government Front Bench. It is an absolute disgrace that when the Committee is discussing such important Amendments not one Scottish Minister has the courtesy to be here to answer the discussion. There is a galaxy of Ministers present, but not one who represents Scotland.

Mr. George Lawson: The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has been sitting about all night and has only just gone to the cafeteria for a cup of tea. She did not expect this series of Amendments to come forward so quickly. She will be here in a few moments. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will restrain himself for that long.

Mr. Maxwell: Withdraw.

Mr. Hendry: Other of my hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies have sat here throughout the debate.

Mr. Maxwell: Withdraw. It is an utter disgrace.

Mr. Hendry: You called the Amendment, Mr. Jennings, whereupon I was entitled to point out that there was no Scottish Minister present.

Mr. Maxwell: Withdraw.

Mr. Hendry: To my knowledge, the Under-Secretary has spent about 10 minutes in the Chamber during the night.

Mr. Maxwell: Shocking. Withdraw.

Mr. Hendry: I trust that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) will do me the courtesy of listening to what I have to say.

Mr. Maxwell: Have the courtesy to withdraw those remarks about my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.

Mr. Hendry: If you order me to withdraw, Mr. Jennings, I will do so. I do not propose to withdraw anything on the advice of the hon. Member for Buckingham.
My purpose in moving the Amendment is to find out why the figure of £10,000 has been chosen as the proposed salary for a judge in England. We have been given no explanation of that figure, either tonight or on Second Reading. It seems to be an arbitrary figure. We want to know why a Puisne Judge in England should get £10,000 and a Lord Ordinary of the Court of Session only £8,250.
5.0 a.m.
It is quite beyond me to understand why a judge in one country should be treated differently from a judge of exactly the same status and importance in another country. I have made private inquiries, and the only explanation I have been given is that it has always been this way—sometime in the reign of King William IV the salaries of the judges in the two countries were fixed with this differentiation which has carried on ever since—but I have not had any explanation why the differentiation should be there. I hope that the hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary, who is now present, will be able to give an explanation, but I must tell her, because she has no experience in these matters, that my researches show that there is no difference between the duties of a puisne judge in England and a Lord Ordinary in the Outer House of the Court of Session.
When making these researches, I carried out various inquiries to find out the respective status of the judges in the two countries. I say nothing about the Irish judges, because my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) will be dealing with that side of the subject from his own personal knowledge. I must, however, raise the question of the relative status of the other judges mentioned in Schedule 1, who are all covered by my series of Amendments.
The first judge mentioned in this Schedule a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. I have nothing to say about that office, because these are judges, some of whom are English and some of whom are Scottish, who sit in the House of Lords in its traditional capacity and deal with


the laws in both countries. They are very responsible judges, and I have no comment to make on their salary.
The next judge mentioned is the Lord Chief Justice, for whom a salary of £12,500 is proposed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will tell me if I am wrong in thinking that there is little or no difference between the Lord Chief Justice in England and the Lord President of the Court of Session in Scotland, except that the Lord President has certain administrative duties that are not attached to the Lord Chief Justice in England. In other words, in his own way, the Lord President of the Court of Session has a more responsible job than the Lord Chief Justice in England, but I hope that I may be told why there should be a difference of no less than £2,500 in their proposed salaries; why the Lord President of the Court of Session, who has an equal responsibility with the Lord Chief Justice in England but who has, in addition very important administrative duties, should be denied the salary proposed for the Lord Chief Justice in England.
Next in the Schedule come the Master of the Rolls and the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division. I am not familiar with these offices, as we do not have them in Scotland, but I understand that these are very important judges and are, in effect, presidents of divisions of the High Court in England. Passing down the Schedule to the corresponding Scottish judge, we find the Lord Justice Clerk—the president of the second division of the Inner House of the Court of Session.
I understand, on the best advice I have been able to get, that the Lord Justice Clerk has exactly the same status as the Master of the Rolls or the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division. In Scotland, he has exactly the same status as the Lord President of the Court of Session, except that he does not have the administrative duties performed by the Lord President.
In proposing for the Lord Justice Clerk the same salary of £11,250 as is proposed for the Master of the Rolls and the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, I think that I am being very modest. The Lord Justice Clerk is a very important judge, and if the

Government are not prepared to approve that proposed salary, I should like either the Attorney-General or the Joint Under-Secretary to tell me why there should be such a differentiation.
Then we pass down to lesser judges, and we find that there are two sorts in England, a Lord Justice of Appeal, and the Puisne Judge, and the same salaries are proposed. Yet a Lord Justice of Appeal has an appellate jurisdiction, whereas the puisne judge is, if I may use the term in this context, a judge of the first instance. So, it seems that one judge has a considerably greater responsibility than the other. When we turn to Scotland and judges of similar status, I find that there are two sorts other than the Lord Justice Clerk. We have judges in the Inner House with an appellate jurisdiction just as the Lord Justice of Appeal has in England, and we have Lords of Appeal in the Outer House, who seem to correspond to the Lord Justice of Appeal and the puisne judges in England.
Why is a differential proposed for these judges? The Government must make up their mind about what is the proper salary for a judge of the first instance; either £10,000—although I do not know why that figure was decided upon—or £8,250, and it seems to be absolutely anomalous for there to be one salary in one country and another salary in the other. I propose to distinguish between the appellate judges with more responsibility, who I say should have the salary of £10,000 in both countries, and judges of first instance who in both countries should have the £8,250 as proposed for the Scottish judges. If I am wrong in anything I have said, perhaps the Attorney-General, or the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will tell me. Why should there be differentiation?
It is no answer to say that the cost of living of a judge in Edinburgh is different from that in London. There might be a slight difference, but the difference cannot be anything such as is proposed by way of salary. This is another example of the contumely and disrespect for Scottish affairs. We have no Scottish Law Officers to look after the interests of the Scottish judges, and I have no answers to my questions during the


Second Reading of this Bill. I am delighted to see the hon. Lady in her place now, and I hope that we shall have an answer and that she will say she has obtained the advice of the Lord Advocate. She certainly has not had any advice from the Solicitor-General, because he cannot be here; he has just been appointed a judge himself.
This really is a most important matter, and I am tempted to say that this Schedule has been made up by English lawyers showing their usual contempt for all things Scottish. Here we have another example of English deceit, and somebody on this side of the Committee if nobody will on the other side, should stand up for the judges of Scotland. We should not rely on the lip-service consistently given from the other side about Scottish affairs.
There has been much said about judges and other occupations in this country. For a great many years the party opposite has been very anxious to have national agreements and national wage scales. Judges should be treated in exactly the same way as every other worker, or practically every other worker. There is a national agreement for miners whereby a miner in Lanarkshire is paid the same wage, job for job, as a miner in Kent. The party opposite must make up its mind on this question. If it wants to have national agreements they must be real national agreements and Scotland should be told why it is treated in this way.
The hon. Lady the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will appreciate that if there were women judges she would be the first to claim that they should have equal pay with male judges. For 50 years the cry of women politicians has been "Equal pay for equal work". Here we are not dealing with male and female judges but with Scottish and English judges, but the same principal applies; for equal work there must be equal pay. In importance Scottish law is in every respect the equivalent of English law. If a Scottish litigant has a case it is as important to him as a case is to an English litigant. He is entitled to have a judge with exactly the same standing as an English judge. Our Scottish judges should be given the same status and consideration as English judges.
I insist on having this question answered tonight by the Government. What is the proper remuneration for a puisne judge, £10,000 or £8,500? Which of those figures will the Government choose? If the Government do not think my figures or the allocation of importance to the different judges are correct, it is up to them to say so. The people of Scotland are entitled to know why their judges are treated in this way. We in Scotland are entitled to justice in this matter.

Mr. Stratton Mills: You have been good enough, Mr. Jennings, to say that we may discuss with this Amendment Amendments Nos. 57, 59 and 64, which relate to Northern Ireland judges. The hour is late but I have been listening to this debate for the last seven hours and I hope the Committee will not mind if I take five minutes to put my view. May I say how glad I am to see present the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. No discourtesy is intended in my saying that I hope he is not to reply to the debate but that the Attorney-General will be speaking on behalf of the Government.
Judges in Northern Ireland have always been paid less than judges in England. I do not know why that is so, but it is an historical anomaly which has grown over the years. They have also always been paid rather less than judges in Scotland. My hon. Friends will know that Scottish smoked salmon is always more expensive, as is Scotch whisky. This may be the rule of thumb by which the Government work, but it is time that this historical anomaly was ended. These Amendments are designed to try to find why it is continued in the Bill.
Northern Ireland judges are appointed by the United Kingdom Government. They do exactly the same kind of work and undertake exactly the same responsibilities as other judges. There is a slight difference in that there are many more judges in England. Therefore, there is a greater degree of specialisation, while in Northern Ireland the judges must inevitably cover a broader field of work. I maintain—I am sure that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will confirm this—that the judges in Northern Ireland set every bit as high a standard as the judges in


England or in Scotland. I do not think there is any difference between us on this point.
5.15 a.m.
Under the proposals in the Schedule, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland is to receive £9,375, whereas the Lord Chief Justice of England is to receive £12,500. This is a substantial difference. I accept that the responsibilities of the Lord Chief Justice of England are very special indeed. My Amendment is tabled essentially as a basis for discussion. If the Attorney-General were to accept my argument on the latter Amendment, it would be fair that compromises on these figures should follow.
Lord Justices of Appeal and the other judges in Northern Ireland do exactly the same work as the judges in England, yet they are to receive £8,125 as against £10,000 for the judges in England. This is entirely wrong. I base my argument entirely on the point of parity. This extends right across the public sector in wages. A civil servant working for a United Kingdom Government Department is not told that he is to be paid £x because he happens to be working in Birmingham but that when he is transferred to a Northern Ireland tax office he will be paid £x minus 20 per cent. A Serviceman stationed with a regiment in London is not told that, when he is transferred to a barracks in Northern Ireland, his salary will be reduced by 20 per cent. A schoolmaster is not told that. The principle of parity extends right across the public sector, except in one small degree. There are special London living allowances, but they are very small by comparison with the differential set out in the Schedule.
I hope that the Attorney-General will be able to tell us how this historical anomaly has grown up and why the Government wish to maintain it still.

The Attorney-General: I congratulate the hon. Members for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) and Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) on their persistence in staying until this early hour to deal with the matters of substance that they have raised. May I hasten to welcome my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who has been in the building throughout the night but who at the moment the hon. Member for

Aberdeenshire, West rose to speak was enjoying bacon and eggs. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and I would gladly have wished to have been with her.
The matters raised relate to the discrepancy between the salaries of the higher judiciary in Scotland and Northern Ireland as compared with the higher judiciary in the rest of the United Kingdom. I hasten to say that the quality of the administration of justice in Northern Ireland and in Scotland is very high indeed and that the duties that fall upon the judges of equivalent status are no doubt just as exacting and just as responsible. I myself have the privilege of being a silk of Northern Ireland. I have seen the courts in action there with some admiration.
I remind the Committee that these differences between the salaries of the judges north and south of the Border and between those judges and those of the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland have always existed. They have always been in the kind of relationship that they are now. It has been the same with regard to the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland since its establishment 40 years ago.
In 1832 the salary of an English puisne judge was fixed by Statute at £5,000 and it remained at that sum until 1954. In 1839 the two judges of the Court of Session, including the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk, were given a salary of £3,000. This was raised to £3,600 in 1887 and remained at that figure until it was increased to £6,600 in 1954. The salaries of puisne judges in the Northern Ireland were fixed in 1926 at £3,000, increased to £3,500 by the Judicial Offices Act, 1952 and raised to £6,500 in 1954. Perhaps I should point out in relation to a submission by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West that since the creation of the Court of Appeal in England in 1875 there has been no salary distinction between English Lords Justices and puisne judges of the English High Court. The parity of salaries is maintained in this Bill and it seems to us appropriate to maintain it also in the Inner House and Outer House in Scotland.
The reason for the difference, apart from its historical origins, is that it is incumbent to provide a salary which will


be sufficiently attractive and which will provide sufficient incentive for leading members of the Bar to accept the offer of a judicial appointment. As the Lawrence Committee pointed out, professional earnings at the Scottish Bar are not at the same level as those at the English Bar. The same applies to Northern Ireland. The decision as to the proper incentive figure involves a broad judgment on a matter on which admittedly precision is difficult to achieve, but the Government are satisfied that the differential which has existed and will continue under the Bill between judicial salaries in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland is just about right and should continue.
I can inform both hon. Members that the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord Advocate and, as regards Northern Ireland, the Lord Chancellor are satisfied that the salaries proposed by the Bill, plus the pension terms to which the judge is entitled, will constitute a reasonable inducement to leading members of both Scottish and Irish Bars to accept judicial appointment. I hope therefore that the Amendment will be withdrawn.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Is the Attorney-General also aware of the difficulties which have arisen in that salaries of Supreme Court staff are also fixed relative the salaries of the High Court judges and therefore are correspondingly lower in Northern Ireland?

The Attorney-General: It would not be in order to deal with the salaries of court staffs under this Bill and therefore I cannot throw light or hope on the matter in this debate.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I support the Amendment and I should like to comment on some of the Attorney-General's arguments. Except for two brief intervals, I have sat through the whole debate and I was interested to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman say in reply to one of his own back-benchers that this was a progressive and reforming Government and to that extent the Government were not scared of looking at change and were taking care to see that reform came quickly. Despite this, the principal answer which he gave my hon. Friend was simply that this has always

been the case and that there has always been a differential. We cannot accept that argument for a moment. We do not expect to hear such sentiments from a right hon. and learned Gentleman who only a few hours ago said that this was a progressive and radical Government.
It is surprising that although my hon. Friend put forward a carefully reasoned and argued case, there was no answer from a Scottish Minister. Instead, the Attorney-General read a prepared text. When my hon. Friend has gone to a great deal of trouble to probe the matter and to ask specific questions, the least we expect is that the questions will be answered.
One theme the right hon. and learned Gentleman advanced consistently—that this has always been the case. Our argument, on the other hand, is for parity. The Scottish Amendment deals with a particular case because the courts in Scotland are not simply a branch of the English courts; they are part of a separate legal system. The Attorney-General agreed that, as far as he was aware, the standards were as high as in England and the work done by the judges was as hard. What possible justification can there be for a differential of this nature? We want to be assured that the Scottish courts and the Scottish law are not regarded as second-grade courts and second-grade law.
I should not have put my name to the Amendment if there had been a clear statement from the Scottish Minister in the House or elsewhere that he considered this an anomaly and hoped to do something about it. We cannot always have our case completely accepted on Bills but at least a Scottish Minister could have admitted that there was this anomaly in the Scottish law and Scottish courts and he could have said that he hoped that it would be put right one day. But when I saw that the Bill had been introduced by the Attorney-General and was supported by the Secretary of State for Scotland, I admit that I was staggered, because surely if anybody was aware of the anomaly and the need to put it right it was the Secretary of State—who supported the Bill.
Three general arguments have been put forward for rejecting the Amendment. The first was that this has always been the case. But we are introducing a new


Bill to increase judges' salaries, and this is the time to correct the anomaly. It was suggested that as the legal earnings in Scotland tended to be a little less than in England, that justified the differential. But this was not the argument which the Attorney-General was using when he replied to a case put forward by his hon. Friends the Members for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) and Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). It conflicts completely with the argument which he used then.
The Attorney-General gave no indication of the differential in earnings, in justifying these new figures. Do they still bear a relationship to the disparity in earnings and is this the same proportion as when the last adjustment was made? It is argued that it may be difficult to attract the best people unless the appropriate salary is paid, but we have no figures to show precisely how much is required. I am not in favour of keeping salaries at an unduly low level, but there will be no shortage of candidates for the post, because many people consider it a great honour and feel proud to render a public service. We do not want that service on the cheap.
I do not think that my right hon. and learned Friend has put forward a convincing argument for the differential in principle. Even if we accept that there is a case for a differential in principle, we are entitled to hear some justification for the extent of it as it now exists. It is no use giving general arguments when the proposal is to preserve exactly the same relationship between the two salaries. We are entitled to know whether there has been a change. This is a Scottish matter, and I hope to hear from the Scottish Minister, whom we are very glad to see present, that the Scottish Office is fighting for Scotland and, while accepting that an anomaly exists, is determined to have something done about it in the future.

5.30 a.m.

Mr. Ogden: I was very glad to hear the able speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) in speaking to his Amendment. Many times in this Session, friends of Northern Ireland on these benches have tried to discuss conditions in the Six Counties, but we have been ruled out of order on almost every

occasion. If this Bill has done nothing else, it has proved to some hon. Members that, at least, the Parliament at Westminster has some rights and responsibilities in the affairs of Ulster.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Judith Hart): Hon. Members from Scotland who have been so assiduous in staying throughout the night in order to raise these points have had most of their answer already from my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. Perhaps the best thing I can do on the question of earnings which they raised is to refer them to the Lawrence Committee's Report, which had some observations about the relationship between professional earnings at the Bar in Scotland as compared with professional earnings at the Bar in England and Wales. I remind them, also, that this question was raised as recently as 1954 and there were no serious objections to the differential at that time. There are other similar relationships between earnings in Scotland and in England in matters of the law.
The difference between the Inner House and the Outer House in Scotland is a very subtle one, as the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) knows very well. It is not to be compared with some of the relationships between the English courts.
The hon. Members have not succeeded in establishing a case here for disputing the merits on which the Bill is based in this respect, and I hope that, in the circumstances, they will recognise that, although their arguments may be pursued in other quarters and at other times, on this Bill we are right to take the view we do.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Schedules 2 and 3 agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

5.34 a.m.

Mr. Ian Percival: I sat through almost the whole of the Second Reading debate and almost the whole of the long Committee stage, and I have


held my peace until now, although sometimes scarce knowing how to do so. However, it seemed to me right to leave it to the right hon. and learned Attorney-General, with all the authority of his high office, to present the case for the Bill. I want, however, before we give the Third Reading to the Bill, to add my support to it, and to the propositions which have been advanced by him.
It has been with a feeling of dismay that I have listened to some of the speeches on this Bill, and, I confess, some feeling of shame that I should ever have heard them made in this place. Surely, we above all, who pass Statute after Statute interfering with individual rights, sometimes in a very autocratic way, should have a special appreciation of and respect for the need for the impartial administration of justice, to which end this Bill is fashioned. It is, of course, common form, indeed part of the pattern, to find, under an extreme form of Government, that administration of justice is not impartial. We have seen cases regrettably recently when judges in other parts of the world have been sacked because they failed to convict—they acquitted on criminal charges.
We in this country fought and won that battle 150 years ago in the political trials of Thomas Paine and others like him, and I like this Bill because it helps to secure and preserve the fruits of the battles which were then won. I would remind the House of what Thomas Erskine, later one of the great Lord Chancellors, said to the jury in the case of Thomas Paine. He said:
If I were to ask you, gentlemen of the jury, what is the choicest flower which grows upon the tree of English liberty, you would answer, 'Security under the law.' If I were to ask the whole people of England what return they looked for at the hands of Government I should still be answered, 'Security under the law'.
In other words, the impartial administration of justice. The impartial administration of justice depends first and last upon the maintenance of an independent judiciary of the very highest calibre.
I hope that, in passing this Bill, the House will appreciate that if we wish to maintain an independent judiciary of the very highest calibre—and if we fail to do that we fail at our peril—we must,

inter alia, be prepared to provide reasonable remuneration.
This Bill is a step in that direction, and I want to congratulate the Government on introducing it and carrying it through. If hon. Gentlemen who, even now, choose to snigger, want to reduce the standing of the judiciary in the eyes of the public, if they want to imperil the impartial administration of justice, if they want the courts to become tools of the Executive, then let them continue to speak as they have done in these debates; but let them and the public be clear what it is they are doing. It cannot be too clear what terrible price we shall pay if we allow such persons by attacks of this kind to lessen the standing, the quality, the effectiveness of the judiciary, and, in the result, the impartial administration of justice. I beg to support the Third Reading of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

FIREARMS BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 1.—(CARRYING FIREARMS WITH INTENT TO COMMIT A SERIOUS OFFENCE.)

Lords Amendment No. 1: In page 1, line 6, leave out from "intend" to "shall" in line 8 and insert:
to commit an indictable offence, or to resist arrest or to prevent the arrest of another, in either case while he has the firearm or imitation firearm with him,".

5.40 a.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Thomas): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a purely drafting Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2.—(CARRYING FIREARMS IN A PUBLIC PLACE.)

Lords Amendment No. 2: In page 1, line 21, leave out from "gun" to end of line 5 on page 2 and insert:
or loaded air weapon or any other firearm (whether loaded or not) together with ammunition suitable for use in that firearm shall—



(a) be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds or both;
(b) unless the firearm is an air weapon, be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine or both".

Mr. George Thomas: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is even more purely drafting.

Mr. Richard Sharples: This Amendment makes a considerable difference in the wording of the Bill. It is the result of Amendments moved from both sides in another place. It makes a considerable improvement in the reading of the Bill, and also in its possibility of understanding.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8.—(CONDITIONS OF REGISTRATION OF FIREARMS DEALERS.)

Lords Amendment No. 3: In page 4, line 3, leave out from beginning to "certificate" in line 5 and insert:
varied or revoked during the currency of a".

Mr. George Thomas: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Subsection (1) of Clause 8 authorises the chief officer of police at any time to impose conditions of registration in the case of firearms dealers and to vary or revoke any conditions either of his own motion or on the application of the dealer. The Amendment is designed to ensure that notice is required only where the condition is imposed, varied, or revoked during the currency of a certificate.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 4: In page 4, leave out line 14 and insert:
remove from the register either that person's name or any place of business of his to which that condition relates".

Mr. George Thomas: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
May we have your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and that of the House, to consider with this Amendment the Lords Amendment No. 6?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): Yes.

Mr. Thomas: The first of these Amendments enables a chief officer of police, in cases where a firearms dealer fails to comply with a condition of registration, to remove from the register the place of business to which that condition relates. The chief officer of police also has power to remove from the register the name of the firearms dealer who fails to comply with a condition of registration, and this may be unduly severe as he may have a number of shops and the offence may relate merely to one.
The purpose of the first Amendment is to ensure that the chief officer of police has discretion to remove the dealer's name and also, power to remove a place of business. This is much fairer for the dealer.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 5: In page 4, line 19, leave out from "and" to end of line 22 and insert:
the appeal shall lie to the court of quarter sessions (or, in Scotland, to the sheriff) within whose jurisdiction there is situated the appellant's place of business in respect of which the condition is in force".

Mr. George Thomas: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
No great issue of principle arises here. The purpose of the Amendment is to improve the drafting.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9.—(MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS OF PRINCIPAL ACT.)

Lords Amendment No. 7: In page 5 line 4, after "but" insert:
(a) if it appears to the chief officer of police that a person required to be registered as a firearms dealer carries on a trade or business in the course of which he manufactures, tests or repairs component parts or accessories for shot guns, but does not manufacture, test or repair complete shot guns, and that it is impossible to assemble a shot gun from the parts likely to come into that person's possession in the course of that trade or business, the chief officer of police may, if he thinks fit, by notice in writing given to that person exempt his transactions in those parts and accessories, so long as the notice is in force, from all or any of


the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of the said section 12 and of the said Schedule 2; and
(b)

Mr. George Thomas: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a more important Amendment, and one by which the Government have sought to meet the wishes of the Opposition.
The matter was much discussed in Committee upstairs when the Bill was before this House. It was discussed in great detail in another place, and my noble Friend undertook to seek to introduce an Amendment which would protect outworkers. The Amendment is intended to go as far as possible in meeting the representations from the Gun Trade Association that outworkers should be excluded from the requirement to keep records of transactions.
I met representatives of the Association, who came to the Home Office, and I know that the hon. Gentleman opposite, also, met the representatives of the trade. They have been very helpful to us. The outworkers are a small company of craftsmen, mainly in the Birmingham area, and the Amendment gives the police the power to exempt certain people from registration.

5.45 a.m.

Mr. Sharples: We on this side are grateful to the Under-Secretary for having accepted the Amendment. We put down an Amendment on this side during the Report stage of the Bill, as a result of representations that we had received from the Gun Trade Association. Only about 150 craftsmen are affected by the Amendment, and they are a diminishing number of people upon whom a great deal of the highly skilled work in the gun trade depends.
This was the first of the major points that we were asked to put to the Home Secretary by the Gun Trade Association, and we are grateful to him for eventually having found a way of meeting our point.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 8: In page 5, line 39, leave out subsection (5) and insert.
(5) The exemption in section 24(1) of the principal Act for registered firearms dealers

shall cease to have effect; but that subsection shall not prevent any such dealer from shortening the barrel of a smooth-bore gun for the sole purpose of replacing a defective part of the barrel so as to produce a barrel of not less than twenty-four inches in length".

Mr. George Thomas: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment is designed to give effect to an undertaking that I gave on Report in this House to find a way of meeting the representations, again of the Gun Trade Association and of the hon. Gentleman opposite, that firearms dealers should continue to be allowed to repair shot gun barrels by the sleeving method. The Amendment has been drafted to meet that point.

Mr. Sharples: Once again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for accepting the Amendment, which meets a point that we put down as a result of representations from the Gun Trade Association on Report. I am almost certain that the Amendment, as now worded, goes the whole way towards meeting the representations which we received on the point. I am most grateful.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 2.—(INCREASED SENTENCES UNDER PRINCIPAL ACT.)

Lords Amendment No. 9: In page 10, line 3, column 1, leave out "(b)".

Mr. George Thomas: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Perhaps with this Amendment we could take the remaining three Lords Amendments.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Thomas: These Amendments correct two minor anomalies. As at present worded, the Bill increases from three months imprisonment and/or a £20 fine to six months' imprisonment and/or a £200 fine the penalties under Section 10 (5, b) of the 1937 Act, but leaves untouched the penalties under Section 10 (5, a). We have removed the anomaly by bringing these penalties into line with each other.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

STATUTORY ORDERS (SPECIAL PROCEDURE) BILL

Lords Amendment considered.

Clause 1.—(AMENDMENTS OF ACT OF 1945.)

Lords Amendment No. 1: In page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (4).

5.50 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I must explain to the House why we have to consider this Amendment at this hour of the morning. I feel rather like the grand old Duke of York who marched his men to the top of the hill and then marched them down again. When the Bill was in Committee my hon. and Joint Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), with his usual eloquence, persuaded the Committee to put these words into the Bill. When it reached another place, my noble Friend Lord Mitchison persuaded the other place to take them out of the Bill, and so we are back where we started.
The short point is that it was thought to be desirable, where the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Lord Chairman of Committees found that the interests of people not given notice of the order might be affected by an Amendment on a Petition for Amendment, such as another water undertaking which might be included in an order for grouping, or something of that sort, for the Chairmen to be able to refuse to accept such an Amendment because it would be unfair.
That remains the intention, but, after discussion, it was decided that this could be done by Standing Orders and I am glad to say that the two Chairmen have agreed to bring before their respective Houses a revised Standing Order which will mean that the House will take control of the matter. The principle remains, but this is a more satisfactory method.

Mr. Graham Page: As the Parliamentary Secretary has said, this subsection was not in the Bill when it started. It went into the Bill during Committee stage in this House, and came out of the Bill during Committee in another place.

The hon. Gentleman has likened this to the exercise of the Duke of York, but I think that it is rather like a Government hokey-cokey—"You put the Amendment in and you take the Amendment out." At this hour of the morning I will resist the temptation to make an impassioned speech about the vacillations and fuddle and muddle of the Government's policy on an Amendment of this sort.
However, I want to make one comment. What it was sought to do in this subsection was that where a petition for an amendment of an order involved Amendments which, if they had been Amendments to a Private Bill, would have required a Petition for Additional Provision, then the Chairman of Ways and Means might direct the deletion of that from the Petition for the amendment of the order. However, neither Erskine May nor Standing Orders that I can discover states when Amendments to a Private Bill require to be prefaced by a Petition for Additional Provision. How did one apply the Standing Order by an undefined rule relating to Private Bills to Statutory Orders under this Bill?
It rather worried me to find that in another place it was said that this had all been solved by a Standing Order and that the wording of the Standing Order had been agreed when we shall not see that in this House before we are asked to remove the subsection. If a new Standing Order is to be made, I hope that it will be in positive terms to take the place of this subsection and not just negative terms. I hope that the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Lord Chairman of Committees will have power not only to reject a Petition for Amendment, although it is right that they should do that if it introduces matter which has not been advertised to the public, or not been before the public inquiry before the order.
I hope, also, that they will have power to accept by Standing Order at any stage a petition for amendment of the order which, the Joint Committee thinks, does not go to the substance of the order but is within the original petition and is merely a matter of form, definition or removal of ambiguity. I hope that the Standing Order can be in that positive form and thus be a help to the House and not merely a pedantic procedural refinement. On that basis, that we shall


have a Standing Order of that nature, I support the removal of the subsection from the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

ATKINSON & CO., BELFAST (SEWING MACHINES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. O'Malley.]

5.56 a.m.

Mr. James A. Kilfedder: In my constituency there are a great number of industries, large, medium and small; some of local distribution only and some known internationally. One firm which, although small in size, is none the less known in many parts of the world is the firm of Atkinson & Company Ltd., the makers of, to give it its full title, Atkinson's Royal Irish poplin ties and scarves. These articles are made from material woven on hand looms in the traditional way for nearly a century and a half.
Last year, the company was forced through increased demands for export, and home market demands, and also through the shortage of skilled handstitchers in the locality, to import two slip-stitch sewing machines from the United States. The Board of Trade refused to grant remission of duty on the machinery. The amount of duty paid was £380. This is a small amount, certainly in comparison with the sums normally mentioned in this House but, none the less, an amount of importance to a small firm such as Atkinsons, which, to meet stiff competition overseas must, in addition to meeting other costs, put a fair amount of money into advertising.
What is much more important than the money, however, is the principle that is involved. It does not matter whether the amount of duty was £100, or £1,000, or even a large sum. The question is that a principle is involved, and Atkinsons feels a real sense of grievance at the attitude of the Board of Trade and the strict interpretation of the regulations governing the duty-free entry of machinery.
I am fortunate in having this opportunity to put the company's complaint

before the House, because the Board of Trade should be ready to help firms in the export trade. This is certainly a case where the Department has not been sympathetic towards the firm. I hope that the Minister of State, Board of Trade, who is to reply to this debate, will change the decision of his Department, a decision which was made under the previous Administration, but which the hon. Gentleman confirmed not very long ago.
I should like briefly to say something about the firm's production. It is centred, in its only factory, in my constituency in West Belfast. The silk poplin hand-woven material is cut by hand. Each tie is handled separately by skilled workers, who finally hand-stitch the backing, the right name for which is, perhaps, stiffening, into the tie, and at the same time, drawing the poplin material together by what is known as a slip stitch running from one end of the tie to the other. This is a skilled operation done by skilled workers in the factory.
Atkinson's Royal Irish poplin ties are regarded in the trade as a quality product. They are sold in high-class shops throughout the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Japan and other countries, as well as countries in Europe.
This year, I am told, the booking of orders by the export market is 51 per cent up on last year's figures, and there is a 20 per cent. increase on last year's figures in the home market. This dramatic increase was due to the imported machinery. This is a splendid effort by a very small firm, and the refusal of the Board of Trade to grant a rebate of duty on the machinery is a sad commentary on the extent to which the Board of Trade is ready to help exporters.
Before this machinery was purchased by Atkinson's the company experienced a difficulty in meeting demands which were being made upon it by firms overseas who wished to buy its products, because of the lack of skilled hand stitchers in the locality. Then the management heard of a sewing machine patented in America for putting this slipstitch into ties. Until then, no sewing machine had been invented to do this job perfectly, and no such machine is manufactured in this country.
This is not a case in which the Board of Trade, in refusing a rebate of duty,


is helping local industry, because no company in this country manufactures such a machine. Atkinson's decided to test the machine, and if it met the high standard expected of the firm, to instal one or more, to enable the whole production of ties with the slipstitch put in by hand to be released for the export market.
In May, 1964, Atkinson's wrote to Messrs. Clarkson's, Ltd. (Leeds), the British agent for the American company, A.M.F. of New York, who manufacture the machine, and a demonstration was arranged for 8th June last year. This arrangement was conveyed by the British agents to the American company in a letter dated 24th May. A photostat copy of the letter was sent later that year to the Board of Trade. The penultimate paragraph of this letter—the date of which is important—reads:
While, initially, the interest"—
the interest referred to was conveyed by telephone conversations before the demonstration—
is in one machine, there is a possibility that two machines could be ordered so as to escape Import Duty.
It is clear from that letter which the British agents sent to the American company that Atkinson's was contemplating buying a second machine and that it was aware of the ability to avoid payment of the duty.
As a result of the demonstration on 8th June last year, Atkinson's, though still somewhat doubtful whether the machine would meet its special requirements, ordered one. In the following month, July, 1964, Atkinson's told the British agents that, after it had had the machine working for some time—there was an absolute need for Atkinson's to make sure that the slipstitch drawn by this machine could match the sewing of the skilled hand worker—it would then decide on the placing of an order for a second machine.
If, instead of letting doubts make it hesitate about ordering a second machine—this is understandable in a firm so dependent on the quality of its products—Atkinson's had used the words, "We will order one and provisionally order a second machine, on condition that the first operates successfully", it would have been granted remission of the duty with no trouble. I think that the Minister would agree with that.
That is certainly what was stated by the Board of Trade in a letter dated 5th October, 1964, which was sent to Atkinson's, and which said:
Therefore, unless you placed a provisional order with the American Machine and Foundry Company for the two machines, i.e., delivery of the second machine to depend upon the suitability of the first, it would seem that any application you may make in this connection would be ineligible for consideration.
There is no difference, in effect, between the two. The intention of the firm was perfectly clear; to purchase a second machine, all being well with the first.
The first slip-stitching machine was delivered in September, 1964, and within a matter of four weeks from the delivery of that machine, on 5th October, Atkinson's told the British agents that it would take the second machine. On 7th October, Atkinson's received a letter from the British agents, part of which stated:
It was very pleasing to learn from you, despite your fears, the installation of the first AMF. Class 59–87 New Mode Necktie Slip-Stitching Machine has proved satisfactory and we gratefully acknowledge receipt of the confirmation order for the second Machine which we discussed in July".
There is was perfectly clear that the British agents for the American company referred to a confirmation order for the second machine. There was, therefore, no doubt as to the nature of the transaction in the mind of the British agents. Indeed, there should be no doubt in the mind of the Board of Trade about the transaction. The cost of the two machines exceeded £1,000 each, on which Atkinson's had to pay a 15 per cent. impost. In addition, the firm had to pay duty of £190 on each machine.
The hour is very late. I will, therefore, curtail my remarks. In appealing to the Minister to reconsider this matter, I would emphasise that, while a small amount may be involved, a principle is also involved. It is the principle of the interpretation of the regulations relating to the importation of machinery and the remission of duty, as well as the exercise of the discretion vested in the Board of Trade.
It is wrong that a company should be penalised for attempting to export more, in answer to the Government's calls for increased exports. The company has increased its production by 50 per cent. and this dramatic increase has been


brought about by the introduction of these two machines. It is a shame that when this small company made this gallant attempt to meet its export orders the Board of Trade in effect showed no sympathy whatever, but, instead, made it pay duty on the two machines.
I hope that the Minister will agree that from the facts of the transaction, manifested in the letters which passed between Atkinson's and the British agents, and the British agents and the American company, it was perfectly clear that this company wanted to buy one machine and, if it proved successful, certainly intended to purchase a second one immediately. That is what happened. It is not too late for the Minister to change his mind and show that the Board of Trade can be sympathetic towards small companies. I hate to think how the Department deals with other firms, if the treatment of Atkinson's is indicative of its general dealings with others.
If, perhaps, Atkinson's has not followed the letter of the regulations as set out, none the less it was only at fault either because it did not want to be too rash in ordering two machines at once or else because it was more interested in making sure that the product of the machine was of the firm's high quality, rather than thinking solely in terms of obtaining a rebate of duty. I urge the Minister to reconsider this matter and allow Atkinson's the rebate of duty.

6.10 a.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edward Redhead): The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Kilfedder) has pursued this matter with great persistence, and he has my utmost sympathy—and I am sure that I enjoy his—that this further effort in the interests of his constituents, Messrs. Richard Atkinson and Company, should have fallen at such a very late hour. As the hon. Member has been brief in stating his case, I shall try to be equally brief in replying, but perhaps it would help if, in the first instance, I cleared up the administrative and legal background to duty remission on machinery, as the position is of some importance to a better understanding of the case.
The Import Duties Act of 1958 empowers the Treasury, on the recommenda-

tion of the Board of Trade, to lay down, by Order, duties for the protection to goods produced in the United Kingdom. The prescribed rate of duty on sewing machines of the kind ordered by Messrs. Atkinson, subject to the determination of classification by Customs, appears to have been one of 15 per cent. In addition to providing for duties on goods entering the United Kingdom, the Act empowers the Treasury, again on the recommendation of the Board of Trade, to direct that payment shall not be required of any duty chargeable under the Act on particular importations of machinery if similar articles are not for the time being procurable in the United Kingdom. It is obvious that before the Board can recommend duty remission, it must be satisfied that the legal requirement that similar machinery is not procurable in the United Kingdom is met.
For this purpose it is relevant to point out that a large number of staff is needed to examine applications, and technical staff to advise them, and the cost of this falls on the taxpayer. In order to limit the cost by reducing the number of applications, the Board, with the agreement of the Treasury, has certain rules with which all applications have to comply before they can be accepted for examination. These rules are very well known, and are published in Notice No. 339, of which the company concerned has a copy.
The majority of these rules are based on the recommendations of an independent committee, the Wilson Smith Committee. This Committee, which was composed mainly of independent business men, was set up in 1953 to advise the Government on the future of the duty remission system for machinery. Such independent consideration of the future of the system was urgent then because, owing to the great number of applications, an overwhelming number, its operation had had to be suspended. The Committee took the view that it was not in the national interest that the Government should maintain a complicated and costly system of administration, and made certain recommendations designed to reduce the number of applications and the cost of administering the system.
One of these recommendations was that machinery valued at less than £2,000 should not be eligible for consideration. The Committee stated that it did not


consider that the duty payable on such machinery—about £400 at that time—was a sufficiently serious burden, even on the smaller firms, to justify the expense of administration. It added that the cost of similar machines ordered at one time by one user for delivery at different times should be allowed to be aggregated for the purpose of reaching the proposed minimum value. This recommendation was accepted in its entirety by the Board of Trade and the Treasury, and the rule was operative at the relevant time in the present case. The minimum value limit has since been raised to £3,000, but this does not affect the present case.
As a concession, and I must emphasise that this is a concession, the Board was prepared to accept, as meeting the requirement of the rule, an order for several machines together worth £2,000 or more where the order was a conditional one—that is, where the total order is placed by one user at one time but the part of it relating to the second or subsequent machines is said to be dependent upon the satisfactory performance of the first.
Turning to the application by Richard Atkinson and Company, the company wrote to the Board on 25th September, 1964, saying that it had already imported a sewing machine valued at £1,071 from the United States. The company added that it understood that if two such machines were imported at the one time it was possible to have a duty free licence. It then explained that, having imported the first machine, and having found it satisfactory, it was considering the purchase of a second; in these circumstances the company asked if duty remission could be given on the second order, and repayment of duty paid on the first.
The Board of Trade in reply sent a copy of Notice No. 339, drawing attention to the rule that machines must be ordered—not necessarily delivered—at one time in order to qualify under the minimum value rule, and pointing out that an application on that basis proposed by the company would be ineligible for consideration. The company ordered a second machine on 5th October. 1964, and in further correspondence and telephone calls, sought to establish that it had given prior notice to the supplier or his agent of the company's intention to order the second machine, subject to

the satisfactory performance of the first. Since, however, it is undeniable that the first machine was ordered in June, 1964, and the second in October, 1964, and that neither machine was valued at £2,000 or more, the Board of Trade could not accept the application without discriminating unfairly against other users who observe the rules, or without breaking the rules.
The hon. Gentleman has suggested that because the company intended to order a second machine at the time that it ordered the first, the Board of Trade should accept the application as meeting the minimum value rule. But this would be quite impracticable. The Board can identify an order, or even a conditional order without difficulty and, indeed, has to identify one or the other in the case of every application; but an "intention" could not be satisfactorily identified, for evidence of "intention" cannot be properly established and the evidence of "intention" in this case is not conclusive.
A certified photostatic copy of the order which the company has produced contains no reference whatever to any suggestion of any "intention", however provisional, to order a second machine, and it is difficult to establish that there was a clear contemplation at that stage. The second machine was ordered in October, 1964, and the Board of Trade could not, without breaking the rules and discriminating against other users who observed them, take any course other than it did. I am sorry to have to explain this to the hon. Gentleman, but it is the situation.
I readily agree with him that this firm has an extremely good exporting record and there is no reflection at all on the firm by this decision not to make a special concession to his constituents. We cannot do that because they are very successful exporters. We cannot be asked to bend the rules which must be applicable in all other cases because they are such good exporters. As all hon. Members know, there are incentives to exporters, and this is hardly a way in which to deal with this aspect of the matter.

Mr. Kilfedder: I am not basing my case on the success of the firm in the export field, but on the facts which would seem to be that this application is within the terms of the regulations.

Mr. Redhead: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that this showed a lack of sympathy on the part of the Board of Trade and that it could not give any reason for taking the course which it did. We congratulate the firm on what it has done, but the hon. Member suggests that because the applicants intended to order the second machine when ordering the first, the Board of Trade should apply the minimum value rule. Where there is a conditional order, the Board can identify it, or a firm order, without difficulty and, indeed, the Board has to identify one or the other in the case of every application; but an "intention" cannot be satisfactorily identified. Evidence of "intention" cannot be properly established. Even if we were prepared to accept "intention" as qualifying for the application of this rule, I am bound to say that the evidence even of "intention" in this case is not conclusive.
The hon. Member has relied on two copy letters as evidence of that intention. The first copy letter was from the agents of the United States manufacturers dated 26th May, 1964, and the hon. Member quoted the relevant portion. While initially the interest was in one machine, there was the possibility that two could be ordered to escape import duty. The hon. Member suggests that Atkinsons knew of this possibility, but it was not Atkinsons who said that but the agents of the United States manufacturers. Nevertheless, we find that Atkinsons ordered only one machine on 8th June following that letter, a copy of which was

not brought to the notice of the Board until after this correspondence had started and that order bore no reference whatever to the possibility of a second order.
The hon. Member went on to quote a copy of a letter dated 7th October, 1964, which acknowledged the receipt of a confirmation order for the second machine. He again quoted the phrase in that letter:
which we discussed in July".
The hon. Member suggests that the dates are important. I agree. If this had been discussed, the first evidence we have of a definite discussion was between the agents and Atkinsons in July. It is significant that the first machine had already been ordered on 8th June. We have to act on ascertainable fact. We have to decide, was there or was there not an order? If we were to agree to adopt intention as a criterion the argument about what constituted an intention in any particular case would be endless and the scheme involved in just the obligation which the Wilson Smith Committee thought should be avoided.
I assure the hon. Member that only after the most careful deliberation and exhaustive examination of all the evidence adduced we have reluctantly decided to adhere to the decision that this does not fall within the rules laid down.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Six o'clock a.m.